The majority of the people living in the Falklands are British citizens. That's the reason they want to stay a part of the British Empire. The majority of people living in Judea and Samaria are Arabs that's the reason they want to live under Arab rule. The problem is the majority of Arabs of these same Arabs do not even recongnize Israel's right to exist at all whether it's in Hebron,or Tel Aviv. And besides Judea and Samaria are a part of Israel's ancestral homeland. It's where Jewish civilization started. The British have no such claims at all on Falklands. So.Mr Segal was right in his criticism of the hypocrisy of the British on this issue.

Britain, and almost all the western powers, are hypocritical. But, what does the Falklands have to do with Argentina? These islands are not "ancient Argentinian homeland." Argentina has, itself, a European colonial past INTERNALLY, carried on after the Spanish left. Count th enumber of native people left in that essentiall European country. But be all this as it may, Argentina really doesn't have any good arguements aside from future mineral exploitation. The Falklands are more British then California and Texas and Nevad and New Mexico are American property. Mostly the writer's comparison just doesn't have much meaning.

The British are the worst land stealing thieving toerags ever .They stole the Malvinas and Gibraltar ,and they have the nerve to criticise Israel ? Let the brits take a hike.

...that it is only natural that they are held to higher standards than Brits. Falklands are British because it is settled by Brits and no one else is allowed. Never mind it does not belong to Britain geographically, politically, or historically. Posession, after all, is 90% of ownership. Judea, on the other hand, is Palestinian because.... actually I am not sure why, given that it is a cradle of the Jewish civilisation, but the fact that the people who can't have it are Jews absolutely has something to do with it.

The land of Israel belongs to the jews because it was promised by G-d and the jews also have historical claims and rights.The malvinas were stolen by Britain who has zero rights to the islands. CASE CLOSED.

Britain had planted its flag on these uninhabited islands and a British community was living there 100 years before Argentina even became a state! How can Argentina therefore have any valid claim on the islands? The UK has circulated a rebuttal of the Argie claim to all UN members and said again that it is very happy to debate the issue before the international court in the Hague. As usual, Argentina does not take up the offer, because they know full well that their claim does not stand up in international law. The difference with the West Bank occupation and settlement is that Israel is in breach of and thumbs its nose at four serious international laws set out in the 4th Geneva Convention. That position of determined illegality is unsustainable and the house of cards will tumble down sooner rather than later. The only similarity between the two situations is two political leaders using nationalist xenophobia and lust for free land to beguile their dopier voters. Kirchner is a transparent lightweight who is going through the hasbara motions. Successive Israeli leaders are far more dangerous in their nationalist addiction to land theft, occupation and racial domination.

No doubt about it - the writer made a mistake in focusing on the Falklands mainly because they were uninhabited when Britain took control. The writer would have a much stronger case if he focused on Northern Ireland and Gibralter.

There is absolutely no comparison with Britain's situation with the Falklands and Israel's vis a vis Judea and Samaria. Since Biblical times Judea and Samaria have been part of the national homeland of the Jewish people. In addition the League of Nation ratified this fact that was further ratified by the United Nations. To make any comparison between the two situations is irrational and wrong.

Hagai, you couldnt be further from the truth if you tried!!. Firstly, If anyone has a claim to the islands, its the French as they set up a colony there called Port Louis in 1764. Unknown to the British, they also set up a colony on another of the Falkland Islands in 1765 under John Byron. It wasnt until 1820 that Captain Jewitt, an American!!, raised the flag claiming the Falklands for the "United Provinces of the River Plate", the old name for Argentina of today. In 1833, the British asked that the iilegal flag of the River Plate be taken down and in 1834 Britain re took control. So nowhere in history did Argentina have the remotest of historical claims. Get the facts right first Hagai!!

Rights. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

each and every nation is racist,each and every nation complains about occupation,each and every nation blames others but my country through history is opened to everyone when they are escaping from misery and war,africans,spanish,jews,guarani , portuguese,austrians,british, bulgarians,czechs,croats,danes, sloveneses,finns,french,italians , hungarians,irish,lithuanians, macedonians,montenegrins,dutch, poles,russians,ukrainians,swedes, bolivians,chileans,syrians and lebaneses,armenians but when argentinians do the same we are deal as "sudacas",the good=the fool

Not to mention serving as safe haven for those who did not flee misery and war but rather justice, like the Nazi's you convieniently forgot to mention.

You stated in your post that the Falklands based squid industry, "...accounts for several billion pounds of profit for the U.K." Where do you get these astronomically wrong numbers? Or did you count for a few decades? No wonder they want to keep the Falklands! And don't forget in English math that a billion has 12 zeros, not 9 like in US. The total annual trade (not profit) is around 45 million (not Billion) pounds. Like your similarly astronomically incorrect claim on another post that the Fukushima disaster in Japan released more radiation into the air than Chernobyl, your facts are simply wrong. Readers beware of any "facts" this poster uses.

that paradise of crime supported by her majesty!

belong to Israel. It's the Palestinians settlers who don't. The reason why Britian imposes aparthied and doesn't allow Argentinians to set foot of live in the Falklands is because they don't want the population in years to come to have a majority to vote on didatchment from Britian. If you were to evict all the Btitish settlers from Falklands then the remaining would go with Argentina.

Falkland Islands were uninhabited prior to British settlements, today's inhabitants indentify themselves as Brits ,...

The difference between Britain's claim on the Falklands and Israel's claim on Judea and Samaria is that Israel's claim is infinitely stronger. Judea and Samaria have been Israel's ancestral heartland for more than 3,500 years. Britain's dubious claim to the Falklands is a tiny fraction of that time period. Israel's ownership of Judea and Samaria has been incontrovertibly proven by some of the world's finest international law scholars, such as Eugene Rostow, author of U.N. Resolution 242. Britain's claim has not.

What a foolish article

From an international law vantage point, Israel's claim to the West Bank is legally non existent. Israel's own supreme court stated plainly in their 2005 ruling on the Gaza disengagement that Israel held Samaria and Judea in belligerent occupation and that they were NOT part of Israel. In 2004 the ICJ ruled the settlements violated the 4th Geneva Convention and were illegal. Not a single country in the world recognizes them as being legal and Eugene Rostow never said the West Bank was legally Israel. In terms of control, the sum total of the time that land was controlled by the ancient Jews was barely longer than the Ottoman control of 400 years (both of which are irrelevant). Britain does not have a dubious claim. Read my post at #82.

We have the rantings of racists like r cummings that claim the the Malvinas were unoccupied, or that the Argentinians were never there, etc. and that a simple reading of history DISPROVES those comments. The Malvinas were occupied by the Spanish Empire and at the time there were no native peoples there. The United States Navy ethnically cleansed those colonists and the British planted their own colonists on land that wasn't theirs over 12,000 km from their nearest legal holding. Argentina has never give up their claim and they are indeed the legal owners and allowing British Colonists to decide the fate of the land is immoral as is the defense of that illegal immoral act. Just as the Arabs living in Judea and Samaria are Jordanian Colonists. They too need to return to their homeland and leave our legally owned lands.

it's disgusting to see that Yent lets through inveterate hardcore liars and propagandists with the same message over and over and over again who have been debunked here before like the old self-hater John R until he wimpered out in shame and under sevre mocking (from Soros--financed institutions and NY pseudo-"universities" where he taught once in the distant past).

She is making plenty of money from the legacy of the old Iron Lady..

the british and their crusades are widely know around the world and like the Raj in India and the Sudanese oh and almost forgetting "NOT" the couragous Jews who like the formentioned ran the cowardly british crusaders out of our rightful and G-dly lands with their rather short tails between their legs. Like all the crusades from the british they will as certain as day is day and night is night will be ran out of the falklands like they should be. And we may take the falklands as an example of lawless occupation but we must not forget Ireland and its struggle of british occupation of the northen parts of Ireland...are we to assume they are going to give it back to the rightful and G-dly owners the Irish..or maybe the IRA should strike while the irons hot and chase the british crusaders out of their lands. Britain = Cowardice, Dictatorship, Racisim, Colonism and small minded imperialistic tendancies still prevelent today.

that British settlers can decide where they want to belong to...

What the so called writer forgets to mention is the residents of the falklands see themselves as British and when asked ( unlike the Palestinians) they confirm that they want to live under British rule.

The difference is that the Falklanders freely want to remain under 200+ years of British rule. I doubt if the WB Palestinians would freely vote to remain under 40+ years of Israeli rule.

#109 John. It's rather funny that you pretend to be a legal scholar who can set things straight in a short anonymous post. Israel's claim to Judea and Samaria has been incontrovertibly proven by international law experts far more learned than you and I will ever be. If you'd like to advance your ridiculous position, offer to publicly debate MK Danny Ayalon on Judea and Samaria. Your friends in the P.A. refuse to because even they know Israel is the real owner of Judea and Samaria.

You Guys.. are so funny... talking about colonies as if you know anything.. Many countries have colonies.. but unlike the days of old.. they are self sufficient countries.. who are mostly seeking independence. Eg: Gibraltar has been British for 300 years.. try telling them to become Spanish.. Or try telling the 150,000 Spanish citizens living for centuries in Ceuta and Melilla, that they are about to become Moroccans. Its not going to happen. Falklands is the same situation! Its not some petty power struggle.. Real lives are in the balance.. The island is over 400KM off the coast of south America... yes read it again... 400KM. Its miles away from anywhere.. The British settled it.. and the population is 4000. Small harmless and an island void of any Argentinian history!!!! So ofcourse.. the British have every right to protect it. War and settlement is the point of this article. If you wage a war.. and win.. you have the rights to the land you settle. If not... then any country that was established via war is void. The USA should be handed over to the native americans..... and all immigrants (all 340Million) returned to the countries of origin...leaving behind all the infrastructure for the natives to enjoy ehem...... many countries whose borders and foundation was established by being victorious would fall foul to this logic.. and most countries borders were formed by WAR!!!!..at some point. So regarding israel.. the point of the article is great.. Israel won the wars since 1948.. Israel has settled the land.... Israel won.. it belongs to the jews. FULL STOP... And for the lefties out there whoh cant accept this logic... and believe that war should not determine who owns a land.. but those who have a historical link to that land.... then Israel still stands as jews/hebrews have been there for over 3000 years.. and the Palestinians are an invented people of recent. Make up your minds guys.,.... but Israel wins every time on the logic.. Unless you are a raving antisemite.. and then logic plays not role in your fuzzy head.

Maybe it has escaped your notice that the British have STOLEN and CONQUERED Gibraltar from the Spanish. STEALING and CONQUERING something doesn't make it yours. And the population of Gibraltar happens to be British and therefore wishes to maintain under British rule. What a surprise... That doesn't mean that the British claim to Gibraltar is legal. That doesn't mean that the actual territory belongs to UK. The British are no natives of Gibraltar. I do not accept the Spanish occupation of Ceuta and Melilla either. Both British and Spanish imperialism are wrong.