Israel’s Continued Support For Argentina

I have no idea how this got into The Spectator these days, but Gus Carter writes:

Israel armed Argentina during the Falklands. That is a fact. Between the 2 April and 14 June 1982, Israel sold Argentina air-to-air missiles, anti-personnel mines, anti-tank weapons, replacement parts for jets, radar and communications equipment and fuel. Nesher fighter jets, supplied by Israel, were part of the air attack that destroyed the RFA Sir Galahad in Bluff Cove. Fifty-six British sailors and soldiers died in that raid.

So when Israel’s foreign minister Gideon Sa’ar taunted England for our 2-1 World Cup defeat, that was a continuation of traditional Israeli foreign policy. ‘How does the song go?’ Sa’ar posted. ‘It’s coming home. Yes it is. It’s coming home to Argentina. Vamos Argentina!’ On the pitch, Argentine footballers unfurled a flag that read ‘Las Malvinas son Argentinas’.

Defenders of Israel claim we somehow deserve their ire. Stephen Daisley argues on Coffee House that Britain has antagonised Israel in recent years by not being sufficiently supportive following 7 October. ‘After constant provocation, it was inevitable that Israel would lose its patience with Britain,’ he writes. We have apparently ‘got off pretty lightly’ in their support for Argentina in the World Cup.

I don’t care all that much about football, so Israel’s support for Messi & Co doesn’t really matter to me. But I do care about those who fight for our country. And that phrase ‘got off pretty lightly’ rankles. Israeli support for Argentina is not simply a story of jovial football rivalry.

During the Falklands invasion, Israel supplied larger fuel tanks so bombers and fighters could more easily reach British territory. This wasn’t just completion of contracts signed before the invasion – and in any case, these contracts could have been suspended, which both France and West Germany did the moment the invasion began. Israel, meanwhile, funnelled further arms to Argentina via Peru, in order to avoid detection by the United States, Europe and Britain, which had all sanctioned the Junta. Israel profited from the attempted annexation of British territory by a dictatorial regime.

I emailed Stephen pointing out this fact. He very courteously replied: ‘The British severely restricted Jewish migration to Palestine during the Holocaust and formally recognised Transjordan’s 1948 seizure of Judea and Samaria, in which the Hashemites and their allies slaughtered hundreds of Jews and expelled thousands more.’ His reply deserves a thoughtful response.

First, even if those historical grievances are valid, none of them excuse the arming of our enemies in a time of war. What happened in the messy, confusing years surrounding the foundation of a Jewish state does not permit Israel’s actions decades later. But I do think it’s worth addressing his points directly.

On the restriction of Jewish migration to Palestine during the second world war, that does indeed look very different in hindsight. But those fighting wars don’t have the luxury of hindsight. At the time, Palestine was under British mandate. Allowing Jews to settle in Palestine mid-war would have risked yet more conflict in the Middle East, drawing resources from the much larger fight against Germany. Defeating Nazism ended the Holocaust and some 30,000 Palestinian Jews fought with Britain. We should remember and honour their sacrifice. But allowing Jews to settle and potentially rise up in the Middle East would have made the defeat of Nazism harder.

For one thing, a large number of Jewish refugees could have reignited the recently suppressed Arab revolt. There was also a risk of those refugees taking up arms to found a homeland. That would have diverted troops and attention to Palestine. You can support the creation of the state of Israel, as I do, and still recognise that it risked destabilisation at a crucial moment.

Once the war was over, that is precisely what happened. Jewish fighters killed 28 Britons at the King David Hotel attack in 1946. That attack was led by a future Israeli Prime Minister, Menachem Begin, who was the one selling arms to Argentina in 1982. Many Zionists explicitly wanted to degrade British control over the region; how else could they establish their homeland? But was that a risk worth taking at a time when Britain stood alone against Nazism?

Britain tried to protect the Jews of Europe. Nearly 100,000 refugees came to our shores between the rise of Hitler and his demise. No doubt we should have taken more. But given the wider context, the restrictions on Jewish settlement of Palestine is understandable.

The second point is the recognition of Transjordan’s 1948 seizure of Judea and Samaria. That occurred in 1950, when Britain recognised both Israel and Jordan’s capture of the West Bank on the same day, while withholding recognition of Jordanian sovereignty over Jerusalem. We also, it should be said, treated the armistice lines as provisional. That was an acknowledgement of what was actually happening, rather than using recognition as some abstract moral tool.

Whatever the facts of the recognition, there is clearly a difference between accepting territorial changes after the fact and arming the Argentinian Junta as they attempted to kill British soldiers. Israel could have taken a position of neutrality in the unprovoked invasion, but they chose to side with our enemies.

Perhaps you think this is all rather silly blather about a football match. But how our supposed allies behave matters. Israel’s continued support for Argentina is a threat to Falklanders, those British citizens who live with the prospect of aggression every day. Israelis know better than most how that feels.