They are foreign colonists on Argentine land, whose illegal settlements should be dismantled, and they should be removed and resettled back in the British homeland. At least that's what the British say about the settlements.

You expelled the native Argentines and settled your own colonists there. The people of the Falklands are foreign settlers on someone else's land, and they have no right whatsoever to be there. If Britain stops saying similar things about the West Bank, I'll take everything I just said back.

Everyone in the Falklands are fully citizens of the state. They are not oppressed in any way and have full rights. In the Israeli occupied territories the Palestinians are not allowed to vote, have no say over their lives, no freedom of movement or self determination. How is that similar to the Falklands.

Wellsaid, Jacob. We Brits DON'T GIVE A DAMM what the rest of the world thinks about this situation. Most of the planet has it in for us it seems but we don't care. Infact, the song of Millwall FC supporters ie No-one likes us we don't care could make a suitable replacement for GSTQ.

I agree with the point you are trying to make about how Britain should not interfere with Israeli policies. However, your argument lacked sufficient research and had an illogical argument, which is evident by the immense negative responses you generated. Perhaps and arguably, Northern Ireland may have been a better comparison. I will not further criticise your piece. Yet, I do believe that traditional international relations should be approached here - do-not concern your country with another country's problems if it does not directly affect yours. Furthermore, Britain with its historical record, does not have a legitimate or moral position on this matter.

How amazingly silly - why have Ynet published this? Its always such a shame when facts get in the way...You left out one teeny, tiny aspect... the people living in the Falklands want to remain British... The Brits don't occupy the Falklands - the people have total freedom over their lives, unlike some others nearer to home!

When in the history of mankind has there ever been any "Palestine" or "Palestinians"? There is no "Palestine" and no "Palestinians" mentioned in the Bible nor in the Koran. "Palestine" is a ROMAN/LATIN name. The letter "p" doesn't exist in Arabic. Nationalism is alien to Arabs. Arab history started in the 7th century AD (1400 years ago) in the southwestern corner of the Arabian peninsula hundreds of kilometers away from Israel. Jewish/Israelite history started 2000 B.C.E (4000 years ago) in the land of Israel, hundreds of kilometers away from the birthplace of Arab culture. In what way are the Arabs and Moslems "natives" of Israel?

Country turns Muslim in two generations. Let them celebrate life in their final days.

This article is complete and utter nonsense!

No, what comes is that the canaanites are no longer there; neither are the Romans nor Ottomans. The arabs are late comers. You and they look at history that somehow begins in 1947. The Jews have been there for a few thousand years. You "overlook" that fact. The colonialists are the ones that came afterwards. You also "overlook" the real problem: that Moslems will not accept Jews in the area. Israel withdrew from Gaza, remember? And what they got, after arab platitudes about using the facilities left behind to create industry, was terrorism, bombs, rockets, indiscriminately aimed. Read some history. Then post.

One small problem with your post: It ain't an occupation. Jews were there way before the Moslem invasion (look up 'invasion'). More arabs came in the early 1900's after the economy improved (because of the Jews) Still more arabs came at the behest of Jordan after the Jews were kicked out in the 1948 war. The Romans changed the name to Palestine (taken from 'Philistines', who were Greek) to erase the memory of the Jews who lived there. They didn't have to erase the memory of the arabs because there weren't any! Read some history, then post.

So you want to return the islands to the first people who settled there? That would be the French not the Spanish. The Falklands are nearly 500 km from Patagonia, the nearest Argentinian mainland. So if most of the present residents want to continue their British connections, that's democracy at work. I would also point out to #22 Geoff that God does not do miracles anymore. Long before there will be a Jewish majority in the West Bank, If Israel does not withdraw the settlers from the occupied territories, Israel will cease to exist. (See White rule in South Africa)

Britain has evacuated every colony it ever owned in which the people living there wanted them to leave. In doing so Britain has left countries all over the world as success stories with western democratic systems and advanced economies: Australia, NZ, Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore to name a few. The people living in the Falklands dont have a big enough economy to be a viable country by themselves so they rely on Britain for support. They have no wish to be ruled by Argentinians because there are fundamental differences between the cultures of Argentina and England. The author makes himself look like a dim-wit by writing such silly obviously wrong rubbish. If anyone thinks such ideas will impress anyone in the west they are living in lala land.

The history of the falkland islands conflict is so far removed from that of the Israeli arab conflict that a comparison between the 2 is completely irrelevant. Look it up! Find some better arguments for our right to being here!!!

YOUR TALKBACK IS CORRECT, ALSO FOR EXAMPLE BOTH ''ISRAEL'', ENGLAND IN PRINCIPLE, ALSO IN THAT CASE HAVE TO MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS, FOR A/ THE TIME-BEING, WITHIN THEIR OWN TERRITORY, WITH THEIR OWN PEOPLE(S). BOTH HAVE AN ENTIRE UNITED NATIONS ORGANIZATION''S MEMBERHIP. AND SURELY KNOW HOW TO ACT IN SUCH A CASE, A.S.O...

... of the Malvinas. Port Stanley is the principal port for the very lucrative squid trade in the South Atlantic. That trade accounts for several billion pounds of profit for the U.K. Increasingly, it is becoming a point of dispatch for the krill industry out of Antarctica. That is why the British refuse to return the Malvinas to Argentina, the rightful owner. One can unfailingly count on the British to do the financially beneficial -- if morally insupportable -- thing. There are only about seven hundred years of well-documented history to prove it. Probably longer, if one cares to check back that far.

The Fawklands is land stolen by Britain, its natives genocided. Samaria is 100% Jewish land containing Hebron - the birthplace of Judaism. Jews have never occupied another peoples' land in all their 4000 year history.

All Britains know this truth but pretend. All Christians become guilty by their silence of Britain's crimes. Britain is the real Judas for 30 barrels of oil.

Since the British did not offer a million Jewish children and carerers and doctors sanctuary they can make amends now and the argentinians as they follow Jesus .

Israel started its life as a British colonial enterprise which went wrong due to resistance from people living in the area. If pro settler Israelis here are hell bent on believing the Falklands were peopled by Argentinians ( which they were not) prior to British settlement and that therefore the Falklands should be returned to Argentina then they are by implication arguing that the entire state of Israel should be ruled by whoever was here resisting the immigration of Jews in the 20th century.

The British conquered the Falkland Islands in 1833 when International law was the "law of conquest". That meant in simple terms, to the victor belongs the spoils. The bulk of the islands population is of British origin. Any territory acquired by war after 1928 violates the Kellogg Briand Pact and is illegal under international law. Even today, 82% of the West Bank population is Arab. Hence, the British are within their legal rights to defend the Falklands. Israel, on the other hand, illegally annexed Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. For practical purposes they de facto annexed the settlements, again illegally. When Jordan annexed the West Bank and East Jerusalem in 1950, Israel was the first to scream that was illegal and virtually the entire world agreed with them. When Israel does the same thing then the rest of the world are hypocrites for condemning them. Whose the hypocrite?

Ephraim was told by his grandfathter the Patriarch Jacob that he would become a multitude of nations with the gates of their enemies. It is HaShem's will for Ephraim (Britain and the Commonwealth) to have the gates of their enemies...Gibralter, Hong Kong, the Falklands, etc. It is wrong for Britain to surrender what the Lord have to them such as the surrender of control of Hong Kong. It would be wrong and bring HaShem's judgment for Britain to surrender the Falklands. Also, there is a lot of oil under the Falklands. There is a vast amount of oil from the Gulf of Mexico to Argentina.

You are very wrong, Vlad. Britain expelled NO-ONE. The islands were uninhabited and the present-day inhabitants are of nearly 100% British descent and were NOT 'planted' there. They ARE indigenous to the islands. The Falklands are largely self-governing (the Governor has virtually no power) and are an overseas dependency of Britain BY CHOICE.

So tell me Bertram, what would you do with those inhabitants? Your socialist agenda undermines your argument. Whatever the inhabitants want, the inhabitants get. This is about civil right, not ethnic cleansing.

A) You're advocating ethnic cleansing B) They never belonged to Argentina. If you had the slightest nuance of historical reading, you would know that. But don't let historical fact deny your appalling argument.

Again, your claims are totally and 100% untrue. Please, for the love of god, USE a history BOOK. While you're there, are you happy advocating ethnic cleansing?

this is really the worst ynet article ever the falklands are populated by british people why should it be controlled by argentina if the people there want to be part of britain the argentinian attack back then was criminal the people in the westbank dont want to be ruled by israel thats a totally different situation if u want to talk of occupation then talk about afghanistan

Who is the idiot that wrote this? This is a TOTAL LIE: "it [the Falklands] also forbids Argentinean nationals from setting foot there." Argentinian families and individuals have been completely free to visit the islands WITHOUT VISA since 1982 (partly to facilitate visiting their war graves) - even Argentinians will not deny this I promise you. Argentina's government is the one threatening to stop this as it has been making noises about cutting off flights between Argentina and the Falklands. THIS ARTICLE IS MADE WORTHLESS BY THIS UNTRUTH ALONE. And here's "what the hell" they are doing there - defending the free population who having had their homes invaded by Argentina in 1982 and people killed do not want any repeat now Argentina is getting noisy about its completely bogus claims. Hagai Segal you know nothing, and this article is simply disgusting. Why are you supporting Argentina's greedy attempts at a land grab and wish to evict inhabitants based on a so-called divine right to their neighbours' land? ...Oh, that's why. Makes sense now.

Vlad, you need to read a history book or two, the falklands was British BEFORE a country called Argentina even existed...! There was no Argentinian land when Britian landed in the falkland islands. The argentinians have no claim on the islands at all, they never controlled them, the people on the islands are british and wish to remain british. Unlike Israel or in your case russia.. where you occupy and invade other countries at will.. British control of the falklands is what the people who live there want.