I understand that Israel premier Bibi Netanyahu intends to stop over in London on his way to New York next month, in order to engage in "bilateral talks" with the British government as a prelude to his addressing the UN General Assembly. No doubt the nonsensical Iranian nuclear deal will be high on the agenda, together with the equally farcical "peace process". But I hope Netanyahu will also find time to engage in a frank discussion with relevant Jewish organisations in the UK, with a view to reaching an understanding on certain key issues on which there appears to be, currently, a serious divergence of views.

At the beginning of July, the UK supported a UN Human Rights Council resolution highly critical of Israel's actions during last summer's Gaza conflict. Not to put too fine a point on it, the resolution accused Israel, along with Hamas, of having committed war crimes.

Of the UNHRC's 47 members, 41, including the UK, voted in favour of the resolution. Bibi was said to be furious. Condemning the vote, he is reported to have said that Israel's actions "emanated from the need to protect the safety of our citizens who confronted a murderous terrorist organisation that was [guilty of] a double war crime - firing deliberately on [Israeli] civilians while hiding behind its own civilians." But it soon became apparent that Bibi's anger was artificial. The British government supported the resolution because Bibi, in an impassioned telephone conversation with the Prime Minister, asked the British government to do just that - the excuse being that the resolution as presented was a watered-down version of an earlier draft, and was apparently, therefore, the lesser of two evils. David Cameron was understandably bewildered. But he did as he was asked.

I have in the past protested to my MP when the UK has voted in favour of anti-Israel resolutions tabled at the UN. I did not do so on this occasion, but many fellow Jews did. The revelation that the UK cast its UNHRC vote because Jerusalem asked it to not only cut the ground from under their feet. It made fools of them. This must never happen again.

I say this knowing that the niceties of diplomacy sometimes involve the taking of curious and even paradoxical positions. But, in a matter of this sort, I do expect the government of Israel to consult with Anglo-Jewish leaders and in this connection I must respectfully remind David Cameron that the first duty of any British government is to act in accordance with the wishes of British electors, not those of a foreign administration.

Netanyahu needs to mend his fences with the British

On this matter, Netanyahu needs to mend his fences with us. But there is an even more pressing matter on which he needs to listen carefully to what British Jews have to say. This concerns the legal rights of ethnic Jews in Judea and Samaria.

We have just bid farewell to Israeli ambassador Danny Taub. His term of office has indeed been rich in achievement. But in one respect - and I say this as a personal friend - his tenure of Israel's London embassy was a disappointment. Not once did he publicly defend or explain the legality underpinning the re-establishment of Jewish communities on the West Bank.

I console myself by observing that an ambassador is, and can only be, the mouthpiece of the government he represents. In declining to explain the legal foundations of Jewish settlements in the liberated territories, Taub was presumably, therefore, acting under orders. In this connection, it's worth reminding ourselves that, until the Oslo so-called peace process, it was commonplace for Israeli governments to defend the legality of these settlements.

With the signing of the Oslo Agreement of 1993 all that changed, apparently on the orders of Israel's then foreign minister, Shimon Peres. For instance, Israel's London embassy ceased to issue material explaining the authenticity of Jewish settlements on the West Bank prior to 1948, or pointing out that the Kingdom of Jordan is a Palestinian Arab state. Inherited by the UN from the League of Nations, the Palestine Mandate still exists, even though the British role in its administration has ended. But you'll be hard-pressed to find an Israeli diplomat in London willing to say so in public.

We urgently need an understanding with the government of Israel on this matter. Bibi's forthcoming London stopover offers an opportunity to begin this conversation.