... Segal shows the intellectual strength of a first grader. Has ever come to his mind that it needs people who see themselves as occupied to make it an occupation? The inhabitants of the Falklands are by a large majority descendents from Britain and of protestant faith, feeling strongly connected to the UK. As soon as the Palestinians in the Westbank will feel the same bond with Israel, Segal may try again.

The writer of this does realize that the inhabitants of the Falkland Isles were allowed to vote to which country they belonged and they voted to stay british? You want to tell us that you let the people of the strip of land you say you have vote on wether they wanted to be part of Israel or not? Really?!

great point hagai. britain controlling the falklands makes about as much sense as israel keeping a stranglehold on its colonialist ventures. both of you should de-occupy the land stolen during the landgrab of yesteryear. one colonial power doesnt have the right to attack another colonial power over their equally disgusting occupation. Well said, my friend!

... journalism - not oly because of the writer and the editor who apparently didnt read it, but because of its shootin-in-the-foot aspect. 1. why on earth would the writer equate what we do with british colonialism. istn that what we want to avoid? 2. although falklands was a matter of pure pride, it signaled the beginning of a period during which most sth american dictatorships fell and economic prosperity (for most) began. 3 its not that we cant hold on the territories; int'l law simply prohibits us from annexing and-or building there. if we want to spend money holding on to land captured as a result of a war forced upon us - that's our business and nobody else's - britian did not give up its collonies coz it wanted to - it couldnt afford them.

There is of course a significant difference between the Falklands and Judea and Samaria (or the Westbank, as most of the world calls it): the Falklanders want to belong to Britain, most people living in Judea and Samaria do not want to belong to Israel. Makes a difference, does is not?

Sir , the British may well be hypocritical land thieving so and sos,, as we are well aware but Israelis can indeed learn much from the British. The british BELIEVE in their cause ,in its righteousness and its justice .In other words the British people wholeheartedly and unreservedly believe in the justice of their claim to the Falklands / Malvinas islands .And ,equally important ,the british are unaminous and united ,unlike self-hating jews and israelis who are always divided .The leftists in Tel-aviv believe thet jews are "occupiers " in our own land.

The People of the Falklands wish to remain British and the people in the West Bank dont want to be under Israeli control. The Islanders are British and have voted against Argentinian control the West Bankers would vote overwhelmingly for the removal of Israeli Troops. The debate is disingenuous as one side wants to be ruled from 10,000miles away and one side (ourside) does not want to be ruled from 10 miles away. There is little connection between the arguments

" Britain forbids us controlling Judea and Samaria ." NO ,NO and No again . ISRAEL prevents this with its self-doubt and fannying around.

lol where on earh did you get you get your info on uk losses and wowsers can you spin a tale lol too too funny truth in journalism lol.

I agree entirely that the UK has no right to the Falkland Islands. It should seek a peaceful resolution to this continuing dispute with the aim of ceding the islands to Argentina. I believed as much back in 1982 when the UK government embarked on its imperialist venture. I also hold similar views regarding Gibraltar. Some say that since the inhabitants of both the Falkalnd Islands and Gibraltar wish to remain British this justifies the Uk's position. Not so, otherwise this could mean that if the British decide to settle anywhere in the world - maybe based upon some ancestral, even biblical claim - the UK would every right to grab that territory as its own and to hell with people already living there.

The inhabitants of the Falklands want to remain British - so your argument holds no water. In fact, its wooly thinking like this that makes me wonder if journalists have any brains at all?

I think the main difference is, the people living on the Falkland Islands want to belong to Britain. However, colonies are somewhat old fashioned remnants of former centuries, and that's where they belong.

Stop blaming the british for israeli failures .The British ,as all nations , look to Israel to be " a light to the nations " and they are pissed off when israel acts like a loser.

Really?!! The headline should read, 'Shameless British hold onto Islands where the population is British and where there is no other indigenous population while Israel controls territory (the West Bank/Judea and Samaria) where there over 2 million non-Israelis' I think there's something about comparing like with like that this writer has missed - perhaps he missed that lesson at school. A better comparison would be Ireland where there British settled thousands of Protestants in the North (which still has a British majority) and ruled the rest of the island for many years through a Protestant elite. That ended, eventually, but not before many had died.

What about Israel giving up the territories, and Britain the Falklands?

British government does not care much about their own population, therefore their opinions should not matter as foreign to them places, such as Judea and Samaria are concerned. If they cared for their own people, instead of worthless Folklands they would have stuck to much pricier Persian gulf territories. They have chosen instead to leave huge oil reserves to the random nomadic chieftains and invite third world impoverished masses to settle on their own land, while duping their own people into soccer/alcohol trap. Any random British medieval king would have cared better for their own people than these pity opportunists.

If there was a free and totally fair referendum, would most of the Palestinians want to be "free of Israel" and how many Israelis would like to be "free of Palestinians"? The answer is probably very few and most! The Falklands comparison shows Hagai Segal's ignorance of the Falklands situation. He should rather compare the Palestinian question to the on going quest for independence from Britain by the Scots! Now there is an issue. We all know the Romans built a wall to keep the Scots out. Cameron wants to keep them in, not for the local brew called Whisky, but for the British North Sea Oil fields which would be in Scottish territorial waters!

but one thing we can all safely agree on is that Europe is no stranger to hypocrisy and double standards when it comes to Israel.

If the wishes of the majority are critical, all that Israel need do is flood the West Bank with enough Jews and the occupation is over. This is precisely the logic the British employ in relation to the settlement of Northern Ireland. And it's what happened with their settlement of Gibralter.

It must be quite expensive and nerve dragging, to keep up a battle fleet at the end of the world...LOLL

One problem with your post is quite simple; it’s wrong. Jews have returned to their land. The colonialists you speak of are the arabs who conquered the area in the late 600’s CE. This was a major land grab which included North Africa and Spain. It was ok for Spain to regain it’s independence but it’s not ok for the Jews? And who came in 1948 when Jordan needed arabs to lay 'claim' to the land after the Jews were kicked out. Who invented themselves after the ’67 war? Read some history. Then post.

Next time the british lecture Israel ,they need to be told to take a running jump by the israelis. The days of the British Empire are over ,Thank G-d.

As many have mentioned already, the inhabitants of the Falklands are largely British. Israelis need to realize that the land they occupy is inhabited by a large chunk of people who do not want to be Israeli but want to stay on this land. What's the point with this sort of delusional thinking? Who is he trying to kid?

Israel has already pulled out from Gazza as a gesture of good will. At the same time indicated that will also leave West bank for a lasting and sincere peace. But as a response received thousands of rockets from Gazza.

Its about time that someone came out like this & exposed U.K. Hypocrisy! How About Gibraltar ? How About Northern Ireland? The So called west bank, was inhabited by Jews 3000 years ago, with King David as their ruler. 3000 year ago, London was a swamp!

As I hold dual British and Israeli citizenship I feel I have a stake in this argument. It's certainly true that the UK government has a chutzpah lecturing Israel on 'building upon occupied land' as Argentina considers the Falklands as just that. The two cases are not however parallel. The Falklands are populated with avowed Brits now and should not be handed to Argentina whose own colonialist past vis-a-vis Patagonia is murky, to say the least. Yehudah and Shomron are NOT occupied Palestine but disputed territory because no State of Palestine has ever existed. The 1948 cease-fire lines were accepted by no Arab state and are subject to negotiation between the two claimants. According to UN resolution 242 Israel should withdraw from "territories" not "THE territories" (deliberately ambiguous) as part of an overall peace treaty. As the Palestinians have never accepted any offer made by Israel, the area remains in dispute and should continue under Israeli sovereignty until a peace treaty is signed.