Printable View
Russian teams were all ostracised. Why not Israeli?
I remember Russian performers were barred from the International Piano Contest in Dublin. Disgraceful decision but it stood.
I would also be against Israeli performers or teams being barred from competition (not their fault their government are animals) but there is serious double standards at play here.
Israel have better international PR than Russia is probably the reason. That PR would probably say it's because Hamas fired the first shot in this latest conflict, so it's not the same as Russia/Ukraine, but obviously there are a lot more layers to this story tham just the last two months.
I'm in no way defending what the IDF are doing in Gaza right now, but the Hamas butchery on October 7th was not "PR", it was cold, hard fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eirambler
Which, along with several other factors, makes a comparison between Russia and Israel so simplistic as to be impossible for any normal, intelligent person to make without also being blinded by prejudice.
Or are all those critics similarly exercised eg by the situation in Nagorno -Karabakh? I mean, who do we kick out of UEFA there? Armenia for (effectively) annexing an internationally recognised part of Azerbaijan's territory? Or Azerbaijan for (effectively) expelling the entire Armenian population?
https://www.rfi.fr/en/europe/2023093...ees-to-armenia
Help me out here, guys, which side has got the better PR?
I will help you outQuote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
they throw both Azerbaijan and Armenia out
The People of Palestine would love if it was possible for FIFA to throw them out
but they cant, as they haven't been given the basic dignity of having their own state.
This isn't complicated
Hamas =terrorists
Israeli government = tyrants
You'd have thought someone from the North would understand what happens if you oppress a section of the population, and then respond with way over the top force when the oppressed population reacts. IRA atrocities in the North don't take away from, and aren't excused by, the fact that the British Government were primarily to blame for matters there.
And their PR department is very hard-working, as the recent Wix software controversy exposed. Heck, they even created an account on here to set out their propaganda.
Israel are currently playing in their third federation btw - they were expelled from the Asian Federation in 1974, and joined UEFA for one campaign (1982 World Cup) before moving to Oceania for 86/90 before returning to UEFA.
Can we keep this on topic?
Anything else can be discussed in the politics forum
Yeah, there's a thread for it lads, and EG I believe you steer yourself clear of the Current Affairs sector here, but we really don't talk much about assimilating you guys these days, hardly at all, we're more at the popcorn & chill stage of unionism watching, you'll be grand, head on in.Quote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
No problem with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
For the Ukraine/Russia business was essentially a sporting problem i.e. a dispute between two Member Associations of Uefa, whereby one of them (UKR obv) refused to interract with another (RUS).
And since they were liable to come up against each other in competition at some stage, both NT and club, then Uefa HAD to make a decision.
As such, they were faced with 3 possible "solutions":
1. Tell both to get on with it;
2. Suspend both;
3. Suspend Russia.
The first would, indeed could, never have worked, since not only would UKR have boycotted Russian teams, but many other Associations were going to do the same. Moreover, even if some Associations/teams might have been prepared to go on playing Russian teams, it was still possible that their governments wouldn't have issued Visas etc.
While the second would have been entirely unfair on Ukraine, since they have done nothing wrong, indeed are already being punished by their teams now having to play "home" games abroad.
Which left only the third option, not coincidentally the solution reached by the great majority of other sporting bodies.
Those are the facts, NONE of which apply to the Palestine/Israel situation, meaning that any attempt to conflate the two is so far wide of the mark as to veer from the sporting to the political i.e. off-topic.
[And just so nobody should be in any doubt, nothing of what I said above is/was political, rather it reflected the sporting situation as it presented itself to Uefa.]
Er, I'll pass on that if you don't mind. (Sighs of relief all round! :wink:)Quote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
None of that involves Robbie Keane
People were saying that his team should be suspended by Uefa, on the basis that Israel's case was comparable to Russia's.Quote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
I was merely pointing out that whether you think they should, and by extension whether he should even have taken a job in Israel in the first place, there is no valid comparison.
Meaning that the "Keane out of Israel/Israel out of Uefa" lobby will have to find another justification, and a sporting one at that.
You never once Robbie Keane or the club he manages. Keep it on topic.
It's extremely hard to achieve consistency in these things. To my thinking, if Russia is banned/ostracized then Israelis teams should be banned too, but the elephant in the room is that the US should be banned too for funding and supporting the Israelis.. not to mention their meddling and war mongering around the world. Chances of that? Zilch. It's all a farce.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fixer82
It's not just "extremely hard", it's impossible - but that's only if you make the basic error of imagining that football teams, whether NT or club, represent the country/state/government they play in.Quote:
Originally Posted by texidub
They don't, they represent their National Association. And so long as a National Association is recognised by FIFA/UEFA, and they're prepared/able to play teams from other NA's, and within the rules of the game, then FIFA and the other Confederations do not take a view on politics. Of course, with Russia/Ukraine, that situation could not be ignored, for the reasons I outlined earlier in #7553, meaning UEFA had to make a decision, with the decision to suspend the Russian Federation being the only one open to them.
But since Israel and Palestine play in different Confederations, no such decision has to be made, other than that Israeli clubs are required to play their European games outside of Israel while the current violence continues.
Those are your politics and you must be entitled to them. But other people hold different political views, so whose are FIFA/UEFA meant to choose, and whose should they reject?Quote:
Originally Posted by texidub
For example, the Saudis bombed the sh1t out of civilians in Yemen for years, with 150k dying directly in the conflict, and another 250k indirectly (starvation, disease etc). What would would you have said eg had Robbie Keane gone to work in Saudi, instead of Israel? Or to take it further, some of the arms the Saudis used to bomb Yemen were sold to them by the UK. Would you argue that he - and every other ROI player - should not work in England either?
Or anywhere abroad, for that matter? Because there are very few countries in the world against whom we couldn't raise similar objections. Are you arguing eg for a boycott of the 2026 World Cup? Or only the US games, with the games in Canada and Mexico being ok? Were you ok with the WC in Qatar 2022? Russia 2018? Was it ok to hold the finals in Argentina in 1978, when that country was ruled by a vicious Fascist military dictatorship, which murdered countless thousands of political prisoners?
I mean, how far do you take these things:
"In 1952 Ireland and Yugoslavia were scheduled to meet in a friendly soccer match in Dalymount Park, Dublin. But one of the most influential and dominant Catholic Church figures in Ireland at the time, Archbishop John Charles McQuaid, had other ideas. McQuaid did not want Ireland to play a ‘Godless country’. He was, like many others, virulently anti-communist. The Cold War was in full spate. Archbishop McQuaid weighed in with his considerable power to get the match stopped. He successfully lobbied the Football Association of Ireland to have the invitation to Yugoslavia withdrawn. FAI officials capitulated very easily. McQuaid had also sent out feelers about his objections to the politicians of the time. The Cold War anti-communist line was an easy sell in the Ireland of the early 1950s. Pupils in national schools around the country prayed for ‘the conversion of Russia’ each day. The match did not take place. McQuaid got his way."
https://www.historyireland.com/two-b...1940s-and-50s/
It is never possible to keep politics out of football entirely, but that is no excuse for inviting it in unnecessarily, as you and (in this case) critics of Robbie Keane/Maccabi Tel Aviv seem determined to do.
Last warning EG, use the correct forum or I'll start deleting posts
best thing to do might be to automatically just move all irrelevant posts into the CA forum. It will drive all subsequent engagement on the topic to the right place. Just a thought.
This is wonderful info and I don’t think it’s out of place here as it’s referring to soccer and sport and the effects of current affairs on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
I appreciate your post EG.
To get back to Robbie, I personally wouldn’t have taken that role but I think it was his personal choice and that should be respected.
I only wish him well
Yeah, this is entirely true. It's probably why UEFA/FIFA were so reluctant to ban Russia last year until Poland (not Ukraine, as EG suggests) called their bluff by refusing to play them in the World Cup qualifiers. The Czechs and Sweden - in the other semi-final - joined in. Similarly, it was the countries in the AFC that refused to play Israel, forcing the Confederation's hand on what to do with them (Israel actually qualified for the 1958 World Cup without playing a game, but FIFA had a rule that you couldn't qualify without playing a game, so they were made play a play-off against Wales, who had already been eliminated).Quote:
Originally Posted by texidub
I think the Russian invasion hit at European memories of Russia's reach across the continent towards the end of World War 2 and obviously for the four decades of Communist rule after that. Israel's actions don't have that sort of impact here. But they're equally scum of course. Their actions are remarkably similar, and of course they've been at it for decades now.
Probably South Africa are the only country to have been banned from sport for political reasons? I'm not sure how much impact it really had - others might know more. But then do you ban Saudi Arabia for its treatment of women and gay people? As you say, it all gets a bit judgemental.
It'd be nice if countries refused to play them but I can't really blame them for not being the one to go against the grain.
Ireland was the first western country to ban the import of South African goods (in 1987, following the Dunnes Stores protests) and maybe something similar would help. But the world has changed since the 80s and money seems so much more people's main interest these days.
All a very depressing situation really.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fixer82
It's not info though, it's an absolute myth. The game went ahead.
https://mylesdungan.com/2018/10/19/o...harles-defied/
My father was at the game. Very decent crowd by all accounts, but in a strange EG is also right The idea that this game was postponed became part of the powerful myth of clerical / Catholic domination in The Republic. Maybe some people in some places wanted to believe the game was postponed for their own political reasons, but it wasn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by third policeman
There is so many of these football myths
My fav, is the made up yarn that Germany wear green, because Ireland were the first country to agree to play them after WW2!
All sport is politics in microcosm - you cannot separate sport from politics and to think you can is an illusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
Sports reflect class differences in society - sports for the rich like golf, tennis and rugby - sports for the poor like soccer, basketball etc. Sports for the rich tend to be individual sports, those for the poor tend to be team sports (reflecting the individual nature of wealth and the combination nature of work involving the poor). The have and can be cross-overs - rugby was a largely working class sport in Limerick, while in the rest of the country it was a sport for the rich and the professionals - cricket is a sport of the elites, yet became the national sport of India.
The Olympics, for example, also reflect these class differences - for decades the IOC was dominated by people closely aligned with fascism (Pierre de Coubertin supported fascism in the 1920's/30s - Avery Brundage, IOC president from 1952-1972 was an open supporter of the Nazis - Juan Antonio Samaranch, president of the IOC from 1980-2001 was Minister for Sport under the fascist dictatorship in Spain and declared himself a 'proud Francoist'). The 1936 Olympics were designed as a propaganda campaign to promote the Aryan Race - yet for the previous two decades the modern Olympics of Coubertin was completely overshadowed by the 'International Workers' Olympiad' (founded by the Socialist Workers' Sport International and the International Federation of Labour in 1907). In the famed Berlin Nazi Olympics less than 4,000 athletes participated from 49 countries - at the People's Olympiad in Barcelona in 1936 more than 6,000 athletes were due to take part also from 49 countries, but in Barcelona there were also teams made up of exiles from Germany and Italy, teams from Alsace, Galicia, the Basque Country, Catalunya, and a team representing Jewish exiles. The largest delegation attending Barcelona were from the USA.While the IOC and the Nazis pumped millions into the running of the Nazi Olympics - the day before the People's Olympiad was due to start, in a conscious decision, the Spanish fascists under Franco launched a coup that started the Spanish civil war. The People's Olympiad were postponed and hundreds of the athletes (and hundreds of the foreign spectators) joined the workers militias to fight the Fascist Falange in Spain over the following three years.
In the same way politics is deeply embedded in soccer - organised soccer initially emerged in the working class towns of midland and northern England. Most soccer clubs emerged from workplace teams - pottery workers in Stoke, railway workers in Crewe, Man Utd by railway workers, Blackburn Olympic and WBA by mill workers. In competition to the socialist nature of these clubs, some were founded by religious organisations, Everton, Man City, Birmingham City, - while others were formed by employers organisations to create divisions in trade unions - for example Blackburn Rovers to undermine Blackburn Olympic. Over time soccer became deeply embedded as a working class sport - but deep political divisions continued to exist.
As soccer spread the situation was replicated - in Spain Atletico were the fascist team in Madrid and Rayo Vallecano the socialist team - Barcelona were the anarchists. In Athens AEK was established by refugees to combat the fascist orientated Panathinaikos. Same in Istanbul where Besiktas is the left-wing club and Galatasaray are associated with the fascist Grey Wolves.
This situation is replicated in most countries - Ireland is somewhat different because of the dominance of gaelic football and hurling and the origins of most Irish teams does need more research. Dundalk was founded by railway workers on the GN Railway, Shelbourne was founded by a group of labourers, Bohs by members of the civil service training college. Most of the modern clubs are pheonix clubs or amalgamations of older clubs in specific locations and most have working class roots (UCD is a bit of an aberration).
Despite the working class nature of soccer clubs - soccer is now completely dominated by money (and large sums of money). We also have sports washing like the ownership of Man City, Newcastle and PSG. Within Israel, Hapoel Tel Aviv was originally established as a communist football club, still has the hammer and sickle as the club's badge and to this day the club's ultras wave flags with Che and Karl Marx emblazoned on them. Over the years the club has forged links with other left-wing and anti-fascist clubs. A few days before the attack by Hamas, fans of Hapoel Tel Aviv were attacked and beaten by Israeli mounted police before the local derby with Maccabi Tel Aviv after Maccabi refused to sell tickets to away fans. The actions of Maccabi and the police were roundly condemned - but not a whimper out of our Robbie. There is a similar story with Hapoel Jerusalem, another left-wing club in Israel and Hapoel Haifa, Hapoel Hadera and Hapoel Be'er Sheva (you can see a trend here). The majority of the fans of Bnei Sakhnin are Palestinians. In contrast Beitar Jerusalem was founded from the remnants of the far-right and religious fundamentalist militias - they are noted for extreme nationalism and anti-Arab racism and celebrate that the club has never had an Arab player. The teams with Maccabi in the name are part of and are promoted by the Israeli establishment to preserve Zionist hegemony and are supported by wealthy Israeli and foreign Jewish business interests.
You can attempt to ignore the politics of sport - and the politics of soccer specifically - but you cannot remove politics from sport and when national and international crises emerge it is inevitable that the politics in sport will also come to the fore - e.g. the banning of Russian teams since the invasion of Ukraine. It is valid as part of BDS to call of a boycott of Israeli teams (those who back the war against Gaza) - and demand that people like Robbie Keane condemn the death and destruction in Gaza as a result of the Israeli invasion. But after doing a running when the initial attack by Hamas happened - Robbie is now comfortably re-ensconced, holding press conferences and being praised for his willingness to put his team first.