If somebody tells me what they think about one issue, I often have a fair idea of what they think about something else. A vote for Leave or Remain in Britain's Brexit referendum is a strong predictor of views on other topics -- such as immigration, the death penalty or Donald Trump.

But this predictive pattern breaks down when it comes to Ukraine and Gaza. Among commentators -- and even governments -- you can find groups that are pro-Israel and pro-Ukraine; pro-Ukraine and pro-Palestine; pro-Russia and pro-Israel; and pro-Russia and pro-Palestine.

Of course, terms like "pro-Palestine" or "pro-Russia" are very imprecise. They cover a wide variety of positions. But they remain a useful shorthand for real political divides.

Frequently, the divisions between the "pro" and "anti" camps are expressed as arguments about western foreign policy. Those in the "pro-Palestine" camp are keen to press war crimes charges against Israeli leaders and to increase pressure on the country. The "pro-Israel" group are broadly supportive of giving the Netanyahu government a free hand and dismissive of charges that Israel is committing genocide. When it comes to the Ukraine war, "pro-Russians" tend to argue that Moscow has legitimate grievances that need to be recognised. The "pro-Ukraine" position is to demand increased support for Kyiv and much more pressure on Putin.

So why has the ideological map become so complicated since the outbreak of the Ukraine and Gaza wars?

The "pro-Ukraine, pro-Israel" crowd closely correlate with the group once known as neoconservatives. They see both Ukraine and Israel as democracies under attack that deserve support. Bernard Henri-Lévy, the French philosopher, is a passionate supporter of Ukraine and recently defended Israel against charges of genocide, arguing: "A genocidal army doesn't take two years to win a war in a territory the size of Las Vegas . . . To speak of genocide in Israel is an offense to common sense." Others who I would put in the pro-Ukraine, pro-Israel camp are the historian Niall Ferguson and the journalist Bari Weiss.

The pro-Ukraine, pro-Palestine crowd are more focused on human rights and war crimes -- rather than the questions of democracy and who fired the first shots. Seen through the lens of human rights, Russia and Israel are placed in the same camp -- charged with the wholesale killing of innocent civilians and the violation of international law. It is this logic that has led the International Criminal Court to issue arrest warrants for both Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu. Pedro Sánchez, the Spanish prime minister, who recently accused Israel of genocide, argues that it is hypocritical for the west to condemn Russia but to support Israel.

Then there is a pro-Russia and pro-Israel position common among admirers of strongman rule. Viktor Orbán, the prime minister of Hungary, exemplifies that stance. He has often held up EU sanctions on Russia -- and warned that western support for Ukraine could lead to a world war. Orbán is also the only EU leader to welcome Netanyahu to his country since the ICC indictment. Variants of the Orban position can be found across the European far right -- where hostility to Muslim immigrants can translate into support for Israel; and nationalism, social conservatism and suspicion of Nato can create sympathy for Russia. The pro-Russia, pro-Israel stance has often seemed the closest description of Trump's outlook.

But there is also a strain of isolationist far-right thinking in America that is pro-Russia and increasingly pro-Palestine. The influential media host Tucker Carlson gave Putin a sympathetic hearing and made laudatory television reports from Russia. Critics of Israel are regulars on his show. They include congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, once regarded as one of Trump's most loyal followers but who became the first elected Republican to accuse Israel of genocide. Both Carlson and Greene have been accused of antisemitism. But their positions on Israel and Ukraine can be seen as an expression of an uncompromising form of "America First" nationalism. They view both as countries that are trying to drag the US into wars.

So where do I fit on this spectrum? First, let me grant myself a courtesy that I have denied to others and say that terms like "pro-Israel" and "pro-Palestine" are too crude to describe my views.

But -- using my own flawed categories -- I would say that, over the past two years, my sympathies have moved from the "pro-Ukraine, pro-Israel camp" to the "pro-Ukraine, pro-Palestine camp". That is because, at the outset of the most recent wars, both Israel and Ukraine were clearly the victims of aggression and war crimes against civilians.

But in the past two years things have changed. Israel's mass killing of Palestinian civilians and the use of hunger as a weapon of war cannot be justified as a legitimate form of self-defence.

Ukraine is still genuinely fighting for its existence -- and is generally doing so with restraint and respect for civilian life. By contrast, for all the Netanyahu government's insistence that Israel faces an existential threat, there is no chance that the last vestiges of Hamas can extinguish Israel's existence as a state. The brutality of Netanyahu's tactics cannot even be justified as a bid to save Israeli hostages. Indeed, it is putting them in danger.

For me, at least, Ukraine and Israel are now on different sides of the moral ledger.

How Ukraine and Gaza scrambled the ideological map