Israel digs themselves into a deeper hole

Israel aren't really doing themselves any favours.
Firstly they fall out politically with the USA over building more houses in disputed area's, then the whole debacle on the assassination in Dubai and stealing the identities of Brits living in Israel, and now an Israeli politician refers to Brits as "dogs."

How charming. I refer you to this article:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3866929,00.html

"When asked of the comparison, Eldad said, "I was just quoting what was said in
Latroun 62 years ago. I think the British are being hypocritical and I do not
wish to insult dogs here, since some dogs show true loyalty. Who gave the
British the right to judge us on the war on terror?"

And then:

"Eldad's fellow party member Michael Ben-Ari was asked if he agrees with the
comparison and said, "Dogs are usually loyal, the British may be dogs, but they
are not loyal to us. They seem to be loyal to the anti-Semitic
establishment."Unfortunately, the Israeli government and Israeli diplomacy play
into their hands. We have learned that a dog must be called by its name. This is
anti-Semitism disguised as anti-Zionism."

Then this morning (24th March 2010) on BBC Radio 4 an Israeli politician from a far right group was being interviewed, and he said that it was acceptable that those passport identities were stolen and used because it was used to fight terrorism.I don't really see that as a good excuse and frankly it just reinforces the idea that Israel are maintain more than ever their "we'll do what we want, stuff you if you don't like it" attitude towards countries it's supposed to call it's allies.

Another thing about the radio interview this morning, the radio presenter interviewing that Israeli MP kept asking what Israel would think if the shoe was on the other foot.What if it was 12 or so Israeli passports that had been stolen and used for a hit.The Israeli MP dodged the question.


I don't think the Israeli's are in any position to attack or critisise us Brits considering Britain has stood by Israel for over 50 years despite all that has been going on.
In all of this though I do feel sorry for the pro-West Israeli's, especially in their government. It must be tough seeing relations unravelling and months of diplomatic work being laid out in front of you as the Israeli's will no doubt try to claw their way back.

Then again if they do try to claw their way back it will be a miracle as it seems that Israel usually just employ their usual attitude of "we'll do what we like, if you don't like it then stuff you."

Well good luck to them.

The Falklands row

Here is my input on the Falklands row and Argentina's claim to the Falklands.

First read this link

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2010/02/oil-the-falkland-islands-and-international-law.html

Quote:

"The continental shelf of a coastal State comprises the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas that extend beyond its territorial sea throughout the natural prolongation of its land territory to the outer edge of the continental margin, or to a distance of 200 nautical miles[/B] from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured where the outer edge of the continental margin does not extend up to that distance"

It is worth noting, at this juncture, that the point of the Falkland Islands closest to Argentina lies some 300 miles (480 kilometres) from its coastline. "

And:

"Article 77, points one and four address the rights of Britain to drill for oil more closely:

"The coastal State exercises over the continental shelf sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring it and exploiting its natural resources... The natural resources referred to in this Part consist of the mineral and other non-living resources of the seabed and subsoil together with living organisms belonging to sedentary species, that is to say, organisms which, at the harvestable stage, either are immobile on or under the seabed or are unable to move except in constant physical contact with the seabed or the subsoil"

Article 81 continues:

"The coastal State shall have the exclusive right to authorize and regulate drilling on the continental shelf for all purposes"

This indicates Britain is well within it's rights.




I would like to point out that the mere geographical position of an island or group of islands does not mean that the mainland country nearest has more claim than another country.

Otherwise the French would be able to claim the Channel Islands.

I would also like to point out that at first when Argentina owned the Falklands it was whilst they were still under Spanish rule. They continued to hold it for a little while after their independence until the British regained control.

It is said it was discovered by John Strong, captain of the Welfare, in January 1690.
That along with the fact that technically Argentina didn't run it at first, Spain did using Argentina as their puppets, I doesn't see how Argentina can justify their claim to these islands.

Whilst it's true that international law might not officially acknowledge British sovereignty, Argentina does not have a credible claim to the islands.