What’s good for the Goose isn’t good for the Gander – Israeli-British relations

 Michael D. Clark 

A few days ago, The Daily Telegraph broke a story that during the Falklands War, Israel supplied, armed and advised the Argentine Government. In the light of the huge changes in the Arab world, the deal between Hamas and the PA, and shifting public opinion towards Israel, it is time for Britain to reassess its position.

The report, which was drawn from ‘Operation Israel: the rearming of Argentina during the dictatorship (1976/1983)’ by Argentine writer and journalist Hernan Dobry, stated:

“There were five flights in total from Tel Aviv to Buenos Aires via Lima, loaded with equipment such as gas masks, radar warning systems to prevent fire from enemy missiles, air to air missiles, duvet jackets and spare parts.

Additional fuel tanks for fighter bombers supplied by Israel were particularly important for Argentina’s war effort as they enabled pilots to fly to the Falklands and return to the Argentine mainland without stopping”.

The story has since been taken up by Haaretz and was met on the comments section with the usual (A) disbelief (B) reprisals against Britain or the British and (C) howls of ‘anti-Semitism!’.

These reactions are linked. The disbelief seemed mainly based in the fact that the report came from a British newspaper. Had those who commented in this way read somewhat more carefully, they would have seen that the author of the book is an Argentine.

The usual xenophobic rants about the British were prompted by either British history in the region and/or the colonial history of Britain in the Falklands. This is not the place to undertake a detailed explanation of the history of the Falklands and the war, but it is worth noting three things. The first is that those on the land are British, have been there for centuries, and there are no Argentines there. As such they are entitled to protection from attack. The second is that to compare that situation with illegal Israeli settlements, as many commentators did, is to stretch a passing resemblance too far. The Argentine invasion was illegal according to international law, as are Israeli settlements. The Argentines were the aggressors, as are the Israelis.

The third is that it seems a common tactic of many outright supporters of Israel to immediately adopt the counter-offensive when Israel is criticised. Instead of explaining or justifying Israeli action, the norm is apparently to make spurious and ludicrous analogies and attempt to draw fire elsewhere. In the same way, both the Argentine dictatorship and the British government of the time benefited from a war which distracted citizens from some terrible domestic issues. It is a lot easier to defend the indefensible when the critic is distracted by a tangent, as I have been above.

The point raised earlier regarding anti-Semitism hardly merits comment, except to say that overuse of any term leaves it cheapened.  

Israel is no friend of Britain. This is one example of Israeli ‘friendship’; another is the misuse of British passports as part of a Mossad hit in January 2010. All states are involved in sticky business; this is not the objection raised here. The objection is that the sticky business Israel undertakes is often far from beneficial to Britain.

Abbas has said that countries that in the past had not recognized a Palestinian state, like Britain and France, would accept such a state now.

I suspect the new Palestinian state might prove a better friend than Israel – it would certainly have to excel to be worse.

Divide and Rule – they learnt it from us

 Michael D. Clark

“The Palestinian Authority must choose either peace with Israel or peace with Hamas. There is no possibility for peace with both” Netanyahu said in a statement.

And once again we see the principle of divide and rule in play. As has been noted by others, Israel’s policy of (seemingly progressive) dialogue with the PA and concurrent isolation of Hamas is designed to impede reconciliation of the Palestinian camp. Paul Pillar has noted that this policy is designed to “push Hamas into irrelevance by accentuating the contrast between the relatively more favorable way of life in the ‘good’ Palestinian territory… and the squalor in the ‘bad’ Palestinian territory”.

This reported deal between Hamas and the PA throws a spanner in the works. Will Netanyahu now be able to point at the ‘good’ Palestinians and show how much ‘better’ their course of action is than the ‘bad’ ones? Will he now be able to claim that Abbas does not represent all Palestinians?

The immense pressure of the mere statement that the PA must choose Israel or Hamas, along with no doubt other more significant actions, will most likely scupper this reunion of the Palestinian people. Additionally, with PA dependence on US aid, we must ask whether the US knew of these talks or not. If not, the US reaction and subsequent pressure on the PA would almost certainly crack the deal. The only US statement to date is this: “We have seen the press reports and are seeking more information. As we have said before, the United States supports Palestinian reconciliation on terms which promote the cause of peace. To play a constructive role, any Palestinian government must accept the Quartet principles by renouncing violence, accepting past agreements, and recognizing Israel’s right to exist”.

If however the US was aware of the talks, then we may be seeing something more unpredictable and perhaps more encouraging.