A fundamental, non-negotiable ingredient for high-stakes diplomacy to function is surprisingly simple: there needs to be a diplomat there.
A senior diplomat with the authority to cultivate relationships, thaw tensions, transmit concerns from their capital to the host country and navigate diplomatic quagmires on the ground.
With the exception of Washington, no Israeli diplomatic posting is more important than London.
That is especially true now. Britain’s Jewish community is facing an alarming wave of antisemitism. The first six months of 2026 recorded 1,926 acts of Jew hatred, marking a 21 percent increase on the same period last year. That included the Hatzola arson attacks and double stabbings in Golders Green. And as we approach the High Holiday season, we will also mourn the attacks at Heaton Park Synagogue in Manchester last Yom Kippur that left two Jewish men dead.
The situation inside Jewish schools is equally troubling, with some headteachers allocating as much as 90 percent of their time on security-related matters.
At the same time, Israel’s relationship with the British government is icy. Prime Minister Andy Burnham has already signalled that his government intends to take a tougher stance on Israel. Before taking office, he told The Guardian: “I know many people feel that at the start of Israel’s military action in Gaza my party didn’t get it right and I am sorry about that. The response has too often not been good enough. We need to do better.”
Which begs a rather undiplomatic question: Why on earth, at precisely this moment, does Israel not have a permanent ambassador in London?
Tzipi Hotovely concluded her term as Israel's ambassador to the UK last September. Tzachi Braverman, Prime Minister Netanyahu's former chief of staff, was next in line to succeed her, but legal troubles in Israel have reportedly led British officials to withhold approval of his diplomatic credentials while proceedings are ongoing.
In the meantime, the embassy was led by chargé d’affaires Daniela Grudsky Ekstein, who concluded her posting in July, with Christian Cantor assuming the role in recent weeks.
Cantor is certainly an experienced and capable diplomat. Fluent in English, he served in Australia, Guatemala and London, where he was previously a political counsellor. There’s no question he has what it takes to keep the embassy operating.
But that is precisely the issue: keeping the lights on at the embassy and leading one of Israel’s most consequential diplomatic relationships are not the same thing.
The position of ambassador carries political weight and has done so for centuries. Before the instantaneous speed of modern communications, the role of ambassador was highly practical, with envoys oftentimes granted considerable discretion in their decision-making. That has since shifted with diplomats now serving as spokespeople to represent their government’s views on the ground.
Still, the role of ambassador remains pivotal today, especially in a place like the UK where envoys regularly interact with ministers, senior officials and political leaders.
The obvious counterargument is Britain still has an Israeli embassy, and highly experienced diplomats remain on the ground. That is of course true. I am not suggesting Israel has abandoned London, or that its diplomatic machinery has stopped functioning.
What we’re seeing in London, however, is that the machinery is operating without the political leadership it needs.
And that matters enormously when the relationship itself is under strain.
Allow me a footballing analogy.
When a club manager gets fired, an interim manager usually steps in while the club searches for a permanent replacement. The interim boss keeps the team moving, maintains morale and makes sure the wheels do not come off. But he or she is not generally appointed to undertake a fundamental, long-term overhaul.
As a lifelong Manchester United fan, I have seen my fair share of interim managers – from Ralf Rangnick to Darren Fletcher – hold down the fort temporarily before someone permanent was appointed.
Diplomacy is not football, of course. But the principle is similar.
An interim diplomatic arrangement can keep an embassy running, but it cannot substitute indefinitely for the political authority, long-term relationship-building and strategic direction of a permanent ambassador.
And Israel has no shortage of complicated issues to navigate with Britain.
There is Gaza, Iran and Lebanon. There is regional security. There is trade. There is the safety of British Jews. And there is a new British government that has already made clear that its approach will be different from its predecessor’s.
Now is when diplomacy should be at its most intensive.
When relations are easy, ambassadors can sometimes afford to be invisible. When relations are strained, their presence becomes more important.
Israel therefore cannot afford to treat the absence of a permanent ambassador in London as an administrative inconvenience to be addressed when political circumstances in Jerusalem permit.
Britain is one of Israel’s most important allies, one of the world’s leading diplomatic and political powers and home to one of the largest Jewish communities outside Israel and the United States.
At a moment when Israel needs more diplomacy in London, not less, leaving one of its most consequential diplomatic posts without a permanent ambassador for almost a year is a strategic failure that should be rectified pronto.
Jonathan Harounoff is an award-winning author, British journalist covering the Middle East, and Israel’s former international spokesperson at the United Nations
To get more from opinion, click here to sign up for our free Editor's Picks newsletter.