The story started with oil, but quickly became political. The Israeli company "Navitas Petroleum" owns 65% of the "Sea Lion" oil project off the islands, while a British company owns the remaining percentage. Argentina says the licenses granted to the project are illegal because they were issued by authorities that Buenos Aires considers part of the British occupation system of the islands, and it escalated the matter into legal proceedings against the Israeli company. Here, Israel entered a highly sensitive zone of political and legal friction with Britain. National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir called on Benjamin Netanyahu to recognize Argentine sovereignty over the Falklands and impose sanctions on Britain, while Yair Netanyahu ("Netanyahu's eldest son") had previously announced his support for the Argentine position.
The irony here is that Israel is using terms in this issue such as "occupation", "sovereignty", and "resource exploitation", which are the exact same terms Britain confronts Israel with when talking about Palestinian territories and settlements.
Of course, both the Falklands and Palestine have their own specific historical and legal circumstances, and it is not correct to reduce the two issues into a single equation. However, international politics is not based on law alone, but on consistency of standards. Britain says the Falklands residents chose to remain under British sovereignty and clings to their right to self-determination (the island referendum held in 2013 was by a majority vote in favor of the islands remaining under the British Crown), while Argentina says Britain is occupying Argentine land and exploiting its natural resources.
Here arises the question that should not be absent from the minds of Palestinians: If the right to self-determination is a sacred principle, why is it not applied with the same clarity to the Palestinian people? And if Israel believes that occupying others' land and exploiting its resources becomes objectionable when it concerns Britain, how does it view the same question when it concerns Palestinian territories?
This is the space that Arabs and Palestinians can invest in, without siding with Argentina or turning the Falklands into a new Palestinian cause. What is required is to use this paradox in the international debate on double standards. The timing is also important here, as the crisis comes at a moment when British-Israeli relations have reached a level of extreme tension, after London took measures against products and services related to settlements, while the tone of Israeli rhetoric towards Britain intensifies.
As for Argentina, it seems to have found in this climate an opportunity to bring the Falkland issue back to the forefront, especially with the escalating conflict over oil and natural resources. Thus, distant islands in the South Atlantic have become a point of intersection between London, Tel Aviv, Buenos Aires, and perhaps Washington as well.
But the most important question is not who will win the Falklands battle, but rather: Can Palestinians gain anything from it?
The opportunity exists if it is dealt with as a new model for raising the pivotal question: Is international law one for all, or does it have multiple versions according to the balances of power?
In international politics, not all opportunities are in the hands of those who hold power; sometimes opportunity arises from the contradiction into which others fall. The Falklands offer Palestinians today one of these rare paradoxes: Israel talks about a British "occupation", and Britain talks about "self-determination", while Palestinians are still waiting for these two principles to become a single rule with no multiple exceptions.
