During Spain’s Ceuta crisis in late July, Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, seized the opportunity and demanded Spain “explain to the world why it still maintains colonial enclaves in Africa.” This, he thought, was the perfect moment to expose the “hypocrisy” of a Spain that had been so eager to criticize Israel for its many crimes and had done so from an anti-colonialist left-wing perspective.
Danon’s cunning strategy was not welcomed by all, however, as Israel’s only remaining allies in the West, broadly described as the “far-right,” appeared to take issue with even the suggestion that colonialism might be a bad thing. One of the most prominent Christian nationalists in America, Michael Knowles, responded accordingly, calling Danon’s statement “a statement perfectly opposed to winning friends and influencing people.” For him, Danon’s earlier statements in support of genocide were preferable.
Despite Israeli Minister of Diaspora Affairs Amichai Chikli’s enthusiasm for the growing and inseparable bond between Israel and the far-right in the West, there is seemingly a limit to the wickedness coming from the former that the latter is prepared to tolerate. In Britain, that limit was reached when Yair Netanyahu, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s son, questioned British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. He was commenting on the Telegraph’s revelation that the U.S. had “threatened to oppose Britain’s sovereignty over the Falkland Islands” if British Prime Minister Andy Burnham did not increase defense spending. Netanyahu Junior thus proclaimed: “The Falkland Islands belong to Argentina!”
The reaction in Britain to this proclamation has been hardly pleasant. Even Restore Britain leader Rupert Lowe, someone known to be generally aligned with Israel, felt compelled to say something to look tough and “patriotic.” He told Netanyahu’s son that he had “enough problems to be focusing on in Israel.” Then came the infamous Islamophobe and Zionist operative Tommy Robison and his weak condemnation, though only after widespread and persistent pressure. The “far-right” in Britain had finally discovered a sense of national pride instead of the synthetic “patriotism” of political theatrics in which they normally indulge.
For those Israel fanatics who care at least minimally about appearances, this was a huge strategic mistake. Former Israeli government spokesperson Eylon Levy criticized Netanyahu Junior for “pissing off the British right, the last bastion of support for Israel in the Kingdom.” Levy thought that what Netanyahu Junior did was “bad hasbara,” and he was joined by numerous “liberal Zionists” in this sentiment.
Netanyahu Junior himself, on the other hand, doubled down. He argued that the British, by refusing to “let the Jews come into the land of Israel, or to any other part of their worldwide empire” during World War II, had effectively “condemned 6 million Jews in Europe to be killed by the Nazis.” In short, according to Netanyahu Junior, Britain was responsible for the Holocaust.
All this hostility, for what exactly? It could not possibly be that Israel was upset that Britain had failed to increase its defense budget sufficiently. It was ostensibly because Britain had recognized a Palestinian state, whose territory is currently under Israeli occupation. Yet even this cannot explain the urgency and passion with which Netanyahu Junior spoke.
Could it be perhaps because the newly appointed British Foreign Minister Ed Miliband pledged a “comprehensive reset” of Britain’s policy toward Israel, especially in relation to its plans for settlements in the West Bank? Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar’s ultimatum that, if Britain proceeds with this policy shift, Israel would not hesitate to retaliate, supports the latter possibility. When asked whether such retaliation would be “through diplomatic means,” Saar remained deliberately vague, refusing to give a “hint” as to how Israel could potentially respond.
Netanyahu Senior’s political future is already looking uncertain, with his main rival leading in the polls ahead of next month’s general election. And his son is certainly not helping him “win friends and influence people.” Could the world finally get rid of him, then, if not for what he has actually done, but at least for being such a nuisance? Only time will tell.
