In a United Nations Security Council session marked by extreme tension, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar engaged in a historic clash with the British delegation. The setting was no coincidence: Israel was seeking to defend before the international community its brutal military offensive in the Gaza Strip and the economic and territorial blockade of the West Bank .

To justify what much of the world points to as violations of international law, Sa'ar resorted to a comparison that struck a nerve in London: the Malvinas/Malvinas Question .

The clash: Ancestral sovereignty or distant colonialism?

In response to criticism from British Secretary of State Yvette Cooper regarding settlement expansion and the humanitarian situation in the occupied territories, Sa'ar launched a devastating rhetorical counterattack. The Israeli Foreign Minister questioned the UK's moral authority to object to the Jewish presence in what he called "the cradle of our civilization" (referring to East Jerusalem, Shiloh, and Hebron), while London maintains a colonial enclave thousands of kilometers from its homeland.

"Madam President, it is our country. They are not 13,000 kilometers from our country, like the Malvina Islands, which Argentinians call the Malvinas Islands . It is a dispute that they have not resolved with Argentina to this day ," Sa'ar declared, to the astonishment of the diplomatic corps .

With this move, Israel used Argentina's sovereign claim as diplomatic ammunition . Its objective was clear: to expose the hypocrisy of Great Britain, which pretends to lecture on territorial integrity in the Middle East while maintaining an anachronistic occupation in the South Atlantic, ignoring UN resolutions for decades.

The comparison trap

In any case, it is imperative to analyze the background of this discursive "solidarity" . Sa'ar does not invoke the Malvinas out of anti-colonialist conviction, but as a rhetorical device to validate the annexation of territories in the West Bank and the offensive in Gaza.

By equating the Jewish presence in disputed territories with Argentine sovereignty over the Malvina Islands, Israel attempts to normalize its own settlement policy under the argument of "historical rights," delegitimizing the British position , but, at the same time, using our Argentine National Cause for its own purposes of warmongering expansionism .

The other side: The "silent partner" of dispossession

Despite the forcefulness of Sa'ar 's speech at the UN, the events in the South Atlantic contradict his words from the podium. While the Israeli foreign minister criticizes the United Kingdom for failing to resolve the dispute with Argentina, Israeli capital partners with the British occupier to deepen the plunder .

The sovereignty of opportunism

Argentine Foreign Minister Pablo Quirno 's December expression of gratitude for Sa'ar 's statements should be viewed with extreme caution. While it is a political fact that a Western ally has exposed Britain's double standards in the Security Council, we cannot ignore the underlying contradiction.

If Israel acknowledges that the UK maintains an unresolved dispute 13,000 km from London, how does it explain its own companies financing this occupation through the illegal exploitation of hydrocarbons? The rhetorical victory at the UN will be a mere mirage if Israel does not order Navitas Petroleum to withdraw from Argentine waters. The sovereignty of the Malvina Islands cannot be anyone's shield to justify offensives elsewhere, nor a bargaining chip for the plundering of natural resources.