Leader of the Falkland Islanders compares their plight to Palestine by Jay Knott (12/21/11) ⇌ (Irony)
There was a war between Britain and Argentina over the Falklands, or Malvinas, in 1982. Britain won.
Argentina still claims the Falklands, and most of her neighbors support her. After all, the sparsely-populated islands are a lot closer to Argentina than to Britain. The Argentine government can claim that Britain's claim to the Malvinas is 'imperialist', and therefore unjustified, because Britain is a more powerful country than Argentina, with a long history of pushing people around. Anti-imperialism, or resentment, still casts its spell.
The inhabitants of the islands all want to stay in the Anglosphere.
'Roger Spink, president of the Falklands Chamber of Commerce, said they were a small community and felt increasingly under blockade. ''If we were Palestine, the European Union would be up in arms," he told the BBC'.
I have a neutral attitide to the question - it's not worth dying for imperialism nor anti-imperialism. Besides, the governments of Margaret Thatcher in London and General Galtieri in Buenos Aires both tried to use the war to make themselves more popular, defeat the working class, that kind of thing.
But look at that statement again. One of the leaders of the 2000+ British Falklanders claims they get LESS SUPPORT THAN THE PALESTINIANS. But
They are more like Israelis than Palestinians - except the Falklands really was terra nullius when they arrived. The article in the Daily Telegraph referred to above quotes a British politician calling for a 'nuclear submarine' to be sent to the Malvinas. This means nuclear-armed, not just nuclear-powered. The chutzpah of the British government and its South Atlantic bootlickers is almost enough to shift me from neutrality to pro-Argiedom. Almost.