Moving the embassy to Jerusalem

is an idea that has not gone down well. The Downunder Prime Minister has been criticised for suggesting  it even be thought about. It made me think about embassies, diplomacy and more.
Sir Henry Wotton was the one who said, " An ambassador is an honest gentleman who is sent to lie abroad for the good of his country."
And it was the Senior Cat's cousin, a very senior such man, who first told me that.
Diplomacy is apparently about lying and spying as much as anything else.  It is also about making connections for the benefit of your country and using them.
What it is not about is doing the bidding of any other country.
And that's the problem isn't it?
The Downunder Prime Minister is apparently no diplomat but does that mean we should give in to the demands being made? 
Or, could we look at it in another way? Could we look at it as support for (a) a genuine peace process which involves (b) a two state solution with Jerusalem as the capital of both?
Let's face it. The peace process isn't going anywhere. It hasn't been going anywhere for a long time. It won't go anywhere until people start to take steps in that direction. 
I know it is all much more complex than this but...what if we looked at moving the embassy not as support of Israel but as support of a peace process?
If  other countries are opposed to that then surely we have the right to ask, "why"?