Earlier this month, the United Kingdom celebrated the Queen's Platinum Jubilee, marking Her Majesty's 70th year on the throne. To mark the occasion, the United Kingdom hosted parties for the Queen around the world, including in Israel. However, there seemed to be a disparity between how Israelis and Palestinians were able to mark the occasion.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Israelis, including former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, were invited to celebrate the Queen's Jubilee in Tel Aviv, Israel's largest city. Meanwhile, in Jerusalem, Israel's capital, the United Kingdom hosted its Jubilee party for Palestinians, and no Israelis were invited.

The reason for this disparity is that the United Kingdom refuses to acknowledge Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and instead places its embassy to Israel in Tel Aviv. Meanwhile, the British consulate to the Palestinians is not in Ramallah, the main Palestinian city; instead, it is in Jerusalem. In other words, the United Kingdom treats Israel unfairly compared to the Palestinians. It operates a double standard when it comes to Jerusalem.

Why does Britain deny Israel's legal right to Jerusalem while supporting a Palestinian claim?

It bases its Jerusalem policy on UN Security Council Resolution 242 and claims that the status of Jerusalem "should be determined in a negotiated settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians." It then immediately adds that "the final determination of Jerusalem must ensure that the holy city is a shared capital of Israel and a Palestinian state."

These statements seem to contradict each other. On one hand, the British position is that Jerusalem's status should be determined by the two parties through negotiations. On the other hand, Britain is giving its "final determination" that Jerusalem "must" be shared between the two, effectively ignoring its own advice by pre-determining the outcome of negotiations.

So far, the Palestinians have refused to acknowledge the Jewish connection to Jerusalem, let alone recognize it as Israel's capital. Meanwhile, the UK Foreign Office continues to reward the intransigence of the Palestinian leadership while penalizing Israel. It is unfathomable for the Jewish connection to Jerusalem to even be called into question.

The British government may genuinely believe that the status of Jerusalem should be determined through negotiation, but no one knows the finalized borders should there be a future Palestinian state. A British consulate in Jerusalem might be in the wrong place for a future Palestinian state. Likewise, if Jerusalem "must" be shared in the United Kingdom's opinion, then why does Britain not just recognize west Jerusalem as Israel's capital today? After all, Israel has sovereignty over Jerusalem under international law, which cannot legally be changed.

There are two ways the United Kingdom can correct this hypocrisy.

The first is to recognize the historic and legal fact that Jerusalem is Israel's capital and move the British embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The second option is to move the British consulate to the Palestinians from Jerusalem to Ramallah. Either of these actions would correct the double standard the government is currently deploying.

London refuses to locate its embassy in Jerusalem, despite the fact that Israel's parliament and government are located in Jerusalem, the usual criteria for British embassies, more than 80 of which are in capital cities around the world. No other sovereign nation would accept being told where it should designate its capital.

This discrimination toward the Jewish state is a matter that needs to be addressed. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) working definition of anti-Semitism states that anti-Semitism includes denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination and applying double standards to Israel.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The United Kingdom has a particular legacy concerning Jerusalem. It was British forces that liberated the holy city from Ottoman occupation in 1917, and it was the British Mandate for Palestine that preceded the rebirth of the modern-day State of Israel. Therefore, Britain has a unique responsibility to treat Israel honorably, and if it truly wants to be non-discriminatory, there is only one realistic option: Move the embassy to Jerusalem.

It's time to end Britain's anachronistic and prejudiced policy over Jerusalem.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post UK must end its double standard over Jerusalem appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The world is at a crossroads regarding the disastrous Iran nuclear deal. As the new US administration considers its options for dealing with an emboldened Iran, the UK government must not be passive in waiting to see which approach the United States takes.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter 

In recent weeks, Iran has escalated its violations of the 2015 nuclear deal – known as the JCPOA – and has enriched uranium up to 20 percent purity, the most significant breach of the deal so far. A nuclear bomb requires uranium enriched to over 90 percent, something experts have now said would take only four months to make.

And recently, The Wall Street Journal revealed that new evidence had recently been uncovered by UN inspectors indicating that Iran is engaged in undeclared nuclear activities.

The reality is that the Iranian regime remains a dangerous threat to regional peace. The failed deal is all but dead after the United States rightly withdrew from it under former President Donald Trump. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom, France and Germany look on waiting to see what move the new US administration will make in its dealings with an Iran that is intent on developing its nuclear threat even further.

The Biden administration has repeatedly said that it would seek a "longer and stronger agreement" with Iran if it "returns to strict compliance," while National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan has said the Biden administration would seek, "to negotiate a follow-on agreement that does materially advance the security of the United States, of Israel and of our other regional partners as well."

Both statements acknowledge that the JCPOA was fundamentally flawed and promisingly imply a more robust approach to Iran's nuclear program.

However, eyebrows have been raised in Washington more recently with the appointment of Robert Malley as US special envoy – a known serial Iran appeaser. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Tony Blinken said that if Iran continues to violate the deal, they could be weeks away from a nuclear bomb – implying that a faster return to the agreement is necessary.

In January 2020, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said that Iran must not be allowed a nuclear weapon and that he would prefer a "Trump deal" instead of the current JCPOA.

"If we're going to get rid of it, then we need a replacement," Johnson told BBC breakfast. "Let's replace it with the Trump deal."

Unfortunately, Britain didn't support American efforts to extend the arms embargo when it was presented last August at the United Nations. The United States had tried to extend the embargo and snap back sanctions. Consequently, Iran is now more empowered, having its arm strengthened and having a renewed ability to facilitate arms for terror proxies. This destabilizes the prospect of peace in the region and causes a direct threat towards Israel, our allies and UK interests worldwide. Shamefully, the United Kingdom appeared to side with Iran on this issue rather than our allies Israel and the United States.

The problem is that Iran has never been in compliance with the Iran deal.

Trump's firm pressure placed upon Iran for the regime's misdemeanors has left the Islamic republic hard-pressed economically. This has put the United States in a strong position at the negotiating table and the new administration must use this leverage to its advantage. American and European partners need to maintain this strong hand in dealing with the Iranian regime otherwise it will continue to think they can get away with continued nuclear blackmail. Capitulation will only reward Tehran and be disastrous for the region and the Iranian people as it continues its catastrophic domestic and foreign policies.

Any new deal with Iran must also recognize that the Middle East landscape is different from that which existed under the Obama administration when the Iran deal was struck. The Abraham Accords mean that the viewpoint of America's regional allies must be taken into consideration.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

Any future deal must also address measurable and permanent reform regarding Iran's other activities. For example, rather than isolating the nuclear topic believing that other reforms will follow, Iran's human-rights abuses, support for terrorism and missile programs must also be confronted from the offset. Otherwise, the mistakes of JCPOA will almost certainly be repeated. The false imprisonment of British-born Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, for example, is one example of why Britain must put forward its own interests in any negotiation with the Islamic republic. It would be reprehensible for Britain to enter into any agreement without Iran's human-rights abuses being challenged.

Past compromises have failed. Britain needs to step up and play its own part in ensuring that Iran curbs its regional ambitions, as well as its deplorable torments upon its own people. And unless these conditions are met, Boris Johnson may be faced with "no deal" with Iran is better than a "bad deal."

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post 'No deal' with Iran is better than a 'bad deal' appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.