Netanyahu authorises support for Argentina’s claim over Falklands

K2RULEZ

Elite Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
40,465
Reaction score
69,229
Reputation
14,205.6
Country of Origin
Country of Residence
Israeli prime minister tells diplomats to call for direct talks on islands’ future

Screenshot_20261024_112640_Chrome.jpg

Benjamin Netanyahu has ordered Israel to support Argentina over the Falklands, The Telegraph can reveal.

The Israeli prime minister told diplomats to change his country’s official position and join Buenos Aires in calling for direct talks about the future of the islands, and to recognise Argentina’s historical connection to the territory.

Mr Netanyahu, who has a close bond with Javier Milei, the Argentine president, altered his position following last month’s decision by Ed Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, to impose economic sanctions on West Bank settlements.

The change in stance falls short of formally backing Argentina’s claim over the Falklands, but will raise fears that Israel could throw its weight behind Buenos Aires if Britain imposes further sanctions on the settlements.

The sanctions package, which Mr Miliband announced while accusing Israel of “ethnic cleansing”, prompted a diplomatic spat that saw Britain’s consulate in Jerusalem downgraded and most of the staff expelled.

The row now appears to have spilt into the Falklands debate.

It comes at a precarious moment for Britain’s sovereignty over the islands, with Argentina mounting a renewed diplomatic push to promote its claim, following comments by Donald Trump in September suggesting he would not back the UK in a future conflict over the issue.

Meanwhile, Argentina has begun legal action seeking to stop the exploration of oil and gas fields north of the Falklands.

At a sparsely attended session of the United Nations last week, Danny Danon, Israel’s ambassador to the UN, made a short speech calling for direct negotiations between Britain and Argentina over the future of the islands.

“Israel recognises the importance that the Argentine public attaches to this issue as well as its ongoing efforts through diplomatic channels and in accordance with the principles of international law,” he said.

The ambassador added that “progress on this matter must be achieved while taking into consideration the full spectrum of relevant historical, legal and human aspects”.

The language was nuanced and did entail formal support for Argentina’s claim.

However, government sources said Israel’s recognition of the “historical connection” between Argentina and the islands marked a significant shift in position.

It will raise fears that Israel could go further, particularly if Mr Netanyahu survives next week’s general election. If he returns with another Right-wing government and the same policies in the West Bank, it could prompt more British sanctions, damaging the relationship further.

“The wording of the statement itself got approved at the highest ranks of the Israeli government,” one source said. “This is the first time Israel has got involved in this conflict.”

The official said the shift should be seen in the context of Israel’s warm relationship with Argentina.

Mr Milei has voiced strong support for Israel throughout the war following the Oct 7 massacre.

He was invited to this year’s independence day celebrations in Israel, in which he lit a ceremonial torch and sang a song.

However, the Israeli official said the UN intervention had also been taken in the context of “a changing policy from the British government towards Israel”, citing in particular “all the critical statements that the British Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary said in the last few weeks, especially regarding sanctions”.

Israel’s demand that the UK and Argentina conduct direct negotiations over the Falklands is considered provocative by Britain, given its longstanding position that talks should only take place with the consent of the islanders.

The inhabitants have consistently expressed a desire to remain under British sovereignty, a point that was made on the floor of the UN in response to Mr Danon’s speech.

In recent months, Israel has emerged as an unlikely battleground for the debate over the islands’ future.

British officials suspect that Mr Milei hopes to utilise Israel’s strong relationship with Washington to argue its case.

This has included a lengthy opinion piece in the Jerusalem Post by Pablo Quirno, Argentina’s foreign minister, in July, in which he argued that “Las Malvinas” were Argentine “by history, by right, by conviction”.

It prompted an article of rebuttal in the same newspaper by Simon Walters, the British ambassador to Israel, who accused Mr Quirno of spreading “historical falsehoods”.

Some who favour Argentina’s claim have sought to leverage Britain’s decision not to take part in the US-Israeli assault on Iran to argue Buenos Aires’s case to Mr Trump.

Marc Zell, chairman of Republicans Overseas Israel, has consistently called on the US president to rethink the US position, given the UK’s “dastardly betrayal”.

In theory, the moment is ripe for Israel to lean towards supporting Argentina.

As traditional European allies have become increasingly critical of Israel over what they describe as the excesses of the Gaza war and rampant settler violence in the West Bank, Israel has stepped up efforts to forge closer ties with Right-leaning countries in South and Central America.

At the same time, the UK’s recognition of Palestinian statehood last year and the September sanctions have brought the British-Israeli relationship to its lowest point in decades.

However, Israeli government sources stressed that, at a technical level, the two governments continued to work productively, including on security.

“Israel and Britain co-operate very strongly on the security side,” one said. “We don’t know what the future will bring, but we hope both governments will continue the relationship as it was before.”

The intelligence relationship is two-way, and gives Israel an additional avenue into the Five Eyes intelligence alliance via another ally with a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

Israeli companies are also involved with UK firms in the Sea Lion oilfield project near the Falklands.

Speaking at the UN last week, Kate Foster, the British representative, said: “The United Kingdom has no doubt over its sovereignty over the Falklands Islands, South Georgia and the Sandwich Islands.”

She added: “There can be no dialogue on sovereignty without the consent of the islanders.”

A spokesman for the Israeli embassy in London said: “I categorically deny this allegation. No such directive exists.”

The Foreign Office was approached for comment.
 
Good move by Israel - it slowly adds one more peg of distance between the people of the UK and Israel ?

Regardless of what you think of the overall Falklands issue, the mistake Israel is making is thinking that is does not need the UK. It does. The more distance Israel puts between itself and the people of Europe, the UK and the USA, the better for the overall Palestine issue in the long run.
 
Good move by Israel - it slowly adds one more peg of distance between the people of the UK and Israel ?

Regardless of what you think of the overall Falklands issue, the mistake Israel is making is thinking that is does not need the UK. It does. The more distance Israel puts between itself and the people of Europe, the UK and the USA, the better for the overall Palestine issue in the long run.

The Zionists believe they have the upperhand. Blackmail will work in their favor.
 
Argentina such a gigantic country till date can't take falkland island back from small England who controls it 8000 kms away from British mainland.....

This shows the power projection capability of Britain....

Argentina wants the islands back but could never prepare itself militarily to snatch it back from Britain..... if today also Argentina attacks then once again they will be given a bloody nose by British army and England will inflict heavy damage on Argentina mainland.... no doubt about it....
 
Last edited:
Good move by Israel - it slowly adds one more peg of distance between the people of the UK and Israel ?

Regardless of what you think of the overall Falklands issue, the mistake Israel is making is thinking that is does not need the UK. It does. The more distance Israel puts between itself and the people of Europe, the UK and the USA, the better for the overall Palestine issue in the long run.

Israelis screwed up here, it's the pro Military right wing in UK who are their biggest supporters, this will totally undermine them
 
Argentina such a gigantic country till date can't take falkland island back from small England who controls it 8000 kms away from British mainland.....

This shows the power projection capability of Britain....

Argentina wants the islands back but could never prepare itself militarily to snatch it back from Britain..... if today also Argentina attacks thrn once again they will be given a bloody nose by British army and England will inflict heavy damage on Argentina mainland.... no doubt about it....
Argentina can definitely take the Falklands if they attack. The Falklands and the UK mainland is 8000 miles apart; it's naive to think the 1600 odd defender (with FIDF) can cause any problem. They are going to lose an arm and a leg taking the island, and then will not have enough troops to defend against a counterattack from the UK. When they come with a shipload of reinforcement like they did back in 82.

The main issue with Argentina is that they don't have a proper Navy and their Air Force is weak; even the RN is not what they used to be in 82. They are going to get isolated if they had taken the Falklands; their Navy would either have to fight the Royal Navy and get sunk at the bottom of the ocean, or they are going to do hit-and-run, which means limited supplies onshore.

What the Brits did with the Falklands now is what we did to Midway back in WW2: there are no way we can defeat an oncoming Japanese attack; we can take away their supporting element by taking out their Navy, then their troop; even if they can make it ashore will be doing nothing.
 
Argentina can definitely take the Falklands if they attack. The Falklands and the UK mainland is 8000 miles apart; it's naive to think the 1600 odd defender (with FIDF) can cause any problem. They are going to lose an arm and a leg taking the island, and then will not have enough troops to defend against a counterattack from the UK. When they come with a shipload of reinforcement like they did back in 82.

The main issue with Argentina is that they don't have a proper Navy and their Air Force is weak; even the RN is not what they used to be in 82. They are going to get isolated if they had taken the Falklands; their Navy would either have to fight the Royal Navy and get sunk at the bottom of the ocean, or they are going to do hit-and-run, which means limited supplies onshore.

What the Brits did with the Falklands now is what we did to Midway back in WW2: there are no way we can defeat an oncoming Japanese attack; we can take away their supporting element by taking out their Navy, then their troop; even if they can make it ashore will be doing nothing.
Yes Argentina will have some advantages of being geographically closer to falkland but their navy and airforce are pathetic to cause any major damage to British....

British navy has also declined but this time I think Britain will use their strategic platforms much earlier to defeat Argentina quickly and decisively..... like they will start striking Argentina on their ports, cities with their astute and vanguard class submarines, type 45s will will eat up Argentine navy very fast.... royal airforce with refuellers will fly unchallenged over Argentina hitting anywhere they want..... today also chances are high of humiliating defeat for Argentina....
 
Yes Argentina will have some advantages of being geographically closer to falkland but their navy and airforce are pathetic to cause any major damage to British....

British navy has also declined but this time I think Britain will use their strategic platforms much earlier to defeat Argentina quickly and decisively..... like they will start striking Argentina on their ports, cities with their astute and vanguard class submarines, type 45s will will eat up Argentine navy very fast.... royal airforce with refuellers will fly unchallenged over Argentina hitting anywhere they want..... today also chances are high of humiliating defeat for Argentina....
They don't need to base a refueler that close to the Falklands when they can forward-deploy their air asset in Ascension Island, which is about 4000 km away.

I doubt they will strike Argentina mainland in force, maybe some tactical strike or SF stuff as they did back in 82, but putting a lot of action on Argentina mainland would push the narrative backward.
 
Argentina can definitely take the Falklands if they attack. The Falklands and the UK mainland is 8000 miles apart; it's naive to think the 1600 odd defender (with FIDF) can cause any problem. They are going to lose an arm and a leg taking the island, and then will not have enough troops to defend against a counterattack from the UK. When they come with a shipload of reinforcement like they did back in 82.

The main issue with Argentina is that they don't have a proper Navy and their Air Force is weak; even the RN is not what they used to be in 82. They are going to get isolated if they had taken the Falklands; their Navy would either have to fight the Royal Navy and get sunk at the bottom of the ocean, or they are going to do hit-and-run, which means limited supplies onshore.

What the Brits did with the Falklands now is what we did to Midway back in WW2: there are no way we can defeat an oncoming Japanese attack; we can take away their supporting element by taking out their Navy, then their troop; even if they can make it ashore will be doing nothing.

It's funny, back in late 70s people were also bemoaning the size and lack of kit of the RN. One thing I would say about the UK if really pushed and in an emergency the UK armed forces can work miracles and has done in the past. Things can get rushed into action kit can be adjusted and modified, lots of neglected capabilities can be rushed through and even retired stuff bought back in. British engineering is still world class. Dont let the currents state of the UK and British defence finances fool you into thinking Britain cannot fight of not needed, they will cannabilise their entire armed forces to rush and protect the Falklands. Even on paper the forces they can send are pretty formidable

If you look back at the Task Group sent in '82 and what can be sent now, in terms of kit is is formidable. Only real new capability argeis have is a few used F-16s. a 2027 UK task force could well be

1 QE Carrier with 24 F-35s (not even half fleet)
1 QE Carrier with with 2 RM Commando battalions and 12 Commando Merlin choppers (not even half the fleet) and 8 Navy Wildcats (not even a third of the fleet)
2 Type 45 Destroyers (third of the total fleet)
2 Astute Attack subs (less then a third of the fleet)
2 Type 23 Frigates (third of the fleet)


To support all of the above you will have the regular British Army and RAF that will be able to access a pool of kit and men below I have not even mentioned

50 Apache gunships
70 Chinook helcopters
6 highly ready rapid deployment infantry regiments trained for this role
1 Regular and 2 reserve units of the SAS supported by Special Recce Regiment and UKSF Support Regiment and 3 x Parachute regiments

8 C-17s
22 A400
14 A330 Voyeger MRTTs
100 Typhoons
Rest of the F-35 fleet
3 E-7 AEW
9 P-8 Posiden MPA

All in all, this would be a quicker win then 1982
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top