Israel debate

[Metrostars]

BTW, I agree Israel should be kicked out of the competition but not for the hypocritically lame reasons you offer. I want them kicked out because they look like being a country that might f*ck up our qualifying chances.

Actually the fact that Israel has taken points off France and Switzerland already may actually improve our chances.

[dcfcsteve]

Personally I dont have a problem with Isreal playing in Europe as long as it is a temporary measure. Once the other arab countries allow Israel to play then Isreal has to be kicked out.

I dont see how their clubs should be allowed in the Champions league though. Thats way wrong

How can you support the principle of the national team playing in Europe, but not the domestic clubs ? The same reasons that preclude the national team's involvement in Arabic/Asian competitions preclude the clubs as well.

Remember - a small number of Israeli clubs are actually Arabic teams (e.g. Bnei Sakhnin, who played Newcastle in the UEFA Cup this year), so by picking on clubs specifically you're doing more damage to Arabs than by picking on the national team.

[Thunderblaster]

Israel like the old SA is an fascist state who carries out anti-semitic policies and whose government I abhor to the highest order.

You do not understand the meaning of anti-semitic. Anti-semitic is anti Judaism, which is the main race and religion of Israel.

[Colbert Report]

still, nobody has answered my question. Why are Israel allowed to play in UEFA, when they are not geographically part of Europe? Thanks.

[Thunderblaster]

still, nobody has answered my question. Why are Israel allowed to play in UEFA, when they are not geographically part of Europe? Thanks.

Neither is Turkey (99%) or Kazakhstan. Surely logging onto the Israeli football federation website and sending an email will answer your question. Israel also competes in the Eurovision Song Contest.

[dcfcsteve]

still, nobody has answered my question. Why are Israel allowed to play in UEFA, when they are not geographically part of Europe? Thanks.

It's been answered a couple of times previously !!

Up until recently, it has been the stated political intent of most of Israel's neighbours to work towards the destruction of the country and the removal of its residents from that region. Whilst most of their neighbours have changed this over the years (though I'm not sure if Syria has) there is still a great deal of anti-Israeli feeling amongst Arab governments in particular, and their neighbours in general. If you can't see how that would then translate into problems when playing those teams at sport, then I'd suggest thinking a wee bit harder about it all.....

[Closed Account 2]

Its illegal for Iranian citizens to face Israeli citizens at sport. Hence the scene at the Olympics, and more recently V.Hashimain's (Iranian forward at Bayern Munich) decision to pull out of the Bayern squad that travelled to play Maccabi Tel Aviv. Prior to 1979 Israeli club teams used to be in the Asian Champions League (a few of them won it in the 70s). When they moved to UEFA, they considered joining the African FA but at the time Egypt voiced strong opposition.

I agree with you about Turkey though, in terms of land mass and location of population it is far more in Asia than in Europe. Also its history vis-a-vis its European neighbours is very bad. Still if its getting into the EU there is no chance whatsoever of it leaving UEFA.

[dcfcsteve]

Its illegal for Iranian citizens to face Israeli citizens at sport. Hence the scene at the Olympics, and more recently V.Hashimain's (Iranian forward at Bayern Munich) decision to pull out of the Bayern squad that travelled to play Maccabi Tel Aviv. Prior to 1979 Israeli club teams used to be in the Asian Champions League (a few of them won it in the 70s). When they moved to UEFA, they considered joining the African FA but at the time Egypt voiced strong opposition.

I agree with you about Turkey though, in terms of land mass and location of population it is far more in Asia than in Europe. Also its history vis-a-vis its European neighbours is very bad. Still if its getting into the EU there is no chance whatsoever of it leaving UEFA.

For the numerous poepl on here who've been questioning Turkeys credentials for claiming 'European' status, a wee look at a map mightened go astray.

The entire island of Cyprus is more geographically southern than ANY part of Turkey is, and Cyprus is also geographically further East than half of the land-mass of Turkey. Cyprus is even located further south than the northern parts of Syria and Iraq, for feck's sake ! Does that therefore make Cyprus less 'European' than Turkey....?

Meanwhile, on an East-west axis, Turkey is broadly on a parallel with Ukraine, Belarus and Estonia. As well as a large chunk of Turkey being further west than all of Cyprus, the country also extends further west than Moldova. Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of Turkey lies further west than its neighbours in Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan. So where's the chorus of calls for those countries not to be considered part of UEFA/Europe ?

And aside from it's long-simmering relationship with Greece (no different than England v Ireland/Scotland, Germany v France etc) and it's admittedly shameful treatment of the Armenians at the start of this century (though I'm sure many on here would question whether Armenia was entitled to consider itself 'European') what other elements regarding Turkey's history vis-a-vis its European neighbours is "very bad" ? And which of those are worse than the history Germany, England, Spain, France, Italy, Serbia, Russia, Sweden, Portugal and Hungary have had with their neighbours ?

When people complain about Turkey not being entitled to describe itself as European, geography is often used. Yet the above shows that geographically Turkey has a stronger claim to being in Europe than many of its acceptedly European neighbours. The reality is that geography is often used as an excuse here in place of other reasons - primarily religious and cultural - against Turkish credentials to be 'European'.

[Colbert Report]

Israel is not part of the continent of Europe. It is part of the continent of Asia, and should play in the Asian qualifying group.

What would happen if Israel were to actually qualify for the World Cup? It would be ruined because the other Asian teams would refuse to play against them.

[Green Tribe]

Indeed, however i cannot think of many of the objecting countries who are good enough to be in the world cup .. they are improving though and eventually they may meet, knowing fifa, they will be sure that they don't clash with each other. But yes, Iran could have qualified (02)had they beat us and that would have been a cracker if israel were also in it.

[dcfcsteve]

Israel is not part of the continent of Europe. It is part of the continent of Asia, and should play in the Asian qualifying group.

What would happen if Israel were to actually qualify for the World Cup? It would be ruined because the other Asian teams would refuse to play against them.

I don't think the issue is so much other teams refusing to play Israel. If, say, Iran and Israel both qualified for the World Cup finals, were paired in the same group, and Iran refused to play them, then the Iranians would forfeit the game. Simple as that.

The issue is more one of security, or at least perceived security, in qualifying groups. There's a big difference between Israel playing Iran or Syria in Damscus/Tehran than there would be in Stuttgart. This should be fairly obvious to anyone with a degree of objectivity. For feck sake, the English team can't play in Turkey without a major security operation. Therefore, just imagine for a second what it would be like if the Israeli's attempted to play a game in Damascus.....

Again - the simple fact is that politics has prevented Israel from playing qualifying games against its Arabic neighbours. That means they can either play no-one at all - which means that football loses out to politics, and the game suffers in Israel - or they can seek to play elsewhere - meaning football does not lose out and the game does not suffer in one of its constituent countries. As a parallel - Derry City is geographically located within Northern Ireland. Should they therefore not be allowed to participate in the southern Eircom League....?

[Closed Account 2]

For the numerous poepl on here who've been questioning Turkeys credentials for claiming 'European' status, a wee look at a map mightened go astray.

This map will do for me, notice the word "Asia" written over eastern Turkey.

Meanwhile, on an East-west axis, Turkey is broadly on a parallel with Ukraine, Belarus and Estonia.

That same map annotated shows that Turkey's eastern edge extends approx 5 deg. further east than the Ukraine's eastern edge (45 deg versus 40 deg). Looking at the map you can see its width of approx. 5 degrees is equivalent to the distance from Belgrade to Senj/Rijeka (Western Croatia, just below the Slovene Border). When measured this distance is approx 220km. A distance that would span the width of many significant EU member states including almost the whole of Ireland as well as Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, the Czech Rep (give or take 5 kms in its case), Slovakia and most probably Slovenia (tho I cant be bothered to measure it - feel free to check for yourself).

As well as a large chunk of Turkey being further west than all of Cyprus, the country also extends further west than Moldova. Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of Turkey lies further west than its neighbours in Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan. So where's the chorus of calls for those countries not to be considered part of UEFA/Europe ?

Well there is certainly a degree of debate as to if those last three countries are part of Europe or not. Moldova seems to be considered part of Europe, as you can tell from the map, its eastern border is at 30 deg., so the total area of Moldovan land mass lies well west of the total area of Turkish land mass.

Norman Davies in his book, "Europe: A History" suggests that Europe is deliniated by the following major boundaries.

1) The Hellespont/Dardanelles/Bosphorus. West of which is Europe, and east of which is Asia. He sites the fact that throughout history east of this point has been known as terms such as Asia Minor, the Near East etc.

2) * The Ural Mountains (seen on 1st map as yellow streak near cities of Ufa, Perm, and Chelyabinsk).

3) The Caucuses (seen on map as yellow streaks above and below the city of Tiblisi).

*Davies also considers the fact that the Eastern frindge is perhaps the least formally defined of the three and has at times been considered as the Volga and Don Rivers, though the accepted is now the Ural Mountains.

Using those criteria the majority of Turkey's land mass and population is located outside of Europe, as is Armenia. Azerbaijan and Georgia straddle that boundary approx. 50-50. (Although Azerbaijan geographically is about 60-40 in Asia, it major urban centre, Baku (pop 1 million) and Sumgait (population 250-300,000) shift the majority of its popultion into Europe.

Another consideration is the land borders of the countries. Turkey shares the following land borders: (incidently that website considers Turkey to be predominantly in Asia)

border countries: Armenia 268 km, Azerbaijan 9 km, Bulgaria 240 km, Georgia 252 km, Greece 206 km, Iran 499 km, Iraq 352 km, Syria 822 km

I think most people would acknowledge Iran, Iraq and Syria to be outside of Europe (though if you have a different opinion please do tell). 1673kms are with non European countries, 492 kms are with commonly acknowledged European Countries (Greece, Bulgaria) and including the rest of the countries that can be considered European the total is 975kms. 975 versus 1673, that an excess of almost 700kms of border with non-European countries.

So historically, in terms of land mass and population post Ottoman Turkey (and indeed Ottoman Turkey itself when you take into account its Eastern provinces in Arabia and Western Persia) has been more in Asia than in Europe.

And aside from it's long-simmering relationship with Greece (no different than England v Ireland/Scotland, Germany v France etc)

I would class Greece - Turkey as qualitativly different from England - Ireland/Scotland, Germany - France in modern terms. Since WWII the governments of Ireland and England (for sake of arguement the UK) have never looked like going to war against each other. Some might debate this, and say in the 60s and 70s a conflict between the Irish Defence Forces and the British Army looked likely, but imo that is not true. Either way if you take it as since the end of the cold war then an armed conflict between the governments of Ireland and the governments of the UK has never looked likely. Similarly the chances of Scotland and England going to war since WWII have been nil. And a similar situation is true of France and Germany (little prospect of armed conflict post WWII).

However the Greece - Turkey situation has been decidedly more tense. During the invasion of Cyprus a Greek counter-offensive was a distinct possiblity. The Evros River (between Turkey and Greece) was heavily land-mined region and remained mined until as late as 1999 (see 2nd last paragraph) and may well still be mined for all I know.

Contrast this with the situation in Northern Ireland.

Despite the legacy of a long conflict on the island of Ireland spanning the last thirty years, there exists no record of any civilian, or member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Garda, the British Army, the Irish Defence Force or any person engaged in paramilitary activities ever being injured or killed by antipersonnel landmines. No antipersonnel landmines have been found in the ground in the State or along the Northern Ireland border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. (from here).

I do not know if the Scottish - English border is heavily mined, but I'd hazard a guess it isnt, when visiting Hadrian's Wall many years ago I cant say I noticed any minefields.

This report doesnt mention any mines on the German - French border.

So the prevalence of mines in the Greek - Turkish situation suggests, recently the conflict has been decidedly more tense than the conflicts between the governments of Ireland - UK, England - Scotland, or Germany - France.

As recently as July 1998, during the Cypriot Missile Incident, the Turkish government threatened to respond (to the Cypriot purchasing of SAMs) with "appropriate measures". Causing many to fear an armed conflict between Turkey and Greece might happen. (For more on this see here). And in 1996 Turkish Airforce F-16s were regularly violating Greek airspace over the Agean Sea. Indeed a Greek Mirage managed to shoot one down, and in a bizzare twist of fate the pilot of the downed plane turned out to be an Israeli Air Force serviceman seconded to the Turkish Airforce for Training Purposes. (See here entry at 8th October). Again I do not recall similar incidents happening in regard to Ireland - UK or France - Germany (exception possibly being the 1968 incident, but I dont think the Brits intentionally shot down the civilian airliner, I think it was an accident). Either way there hasnt been any incidents like the 1996 ones between UK and Irish jets in the same time scale (ie over the past 10 years).

what other elements regarding Turkey's history vis-a-vis its European neighbours is "very bad" ? And which of those are worse than the history Germany, England, Spain, France, Italy, Serbia, Russia, Sweden, Portugal and Hungary have had with their neighbours ?

Well I'd say that the Ottoman Empire left a bad legacy on many of the countries it controlled. Greece has been discussed above, and the brutality of the Ottoman Regieme on native inhabitants in countries like Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania etc was in my opinion bad. The first half of M. Glenny's book, "the Balkans" deals with this extensivly. One of the things that sticks in my mind from reading it about 18 months ago was the Ottoman's use of janissaries. The were a group of soldiers who were pressed into fighting for the Ottomans, but were made up of war captives and slaves. However they were soon made up of boys taken from mainly Serb, Bulgarian and Romanian families in a human taxation called the devshirmeh. This practice of taking children (without the families consent) and forcing them to serve in the Ottoman Army is akin to the slavery carried out by colonial powers and didnt end until the 1800s. However perhaps the most telling fact is that fact that, like the Armenian situation, there has been no official apology and no general recognition (by any Turkish Government) that the system was morally bad. Understandably this is a source of sorrow for many in the Balkans.

(...cont)

[Closed Account 2]

(...cont due to going over 10000 characters)

You might also want to look into the incident at Otranto, Italy. A Turkish Fleet laid siege to the town killed 12,000 people, found another 800 survivors demanded they renounce their Catholicism, and when they didnt chopped marched them to the top of a hill and chopped their heads off. They then found the Bishop and sawed him in half. (Ref "Rough Guide to Italy" p 948-9). I'd describe that as "very bad", and although its might not be that much worse than what other countries youve listed have done, its quite a high number for about two weeks of combat. Again no appology that im aware of.

Other countries that have done very bad things to their neighbours have usually apologised for them in one way or another (eg Germany WWII, Serbia saying Srebrenica was "a dark day for Serbs and Serbian History" etc), but Turkish governments have persistantly failed to say sorry for things like the Armenian Genocide and the bad things the Ottomans did. That tends to cause problems vis-a-vis their relationships with nearby countries.

The reality is that geography is often used as an excuse here in place of other reasons - primarily religious and cultural - against Turkish credentials to be 'European'.

Well that is not the case for me. I think that both Bosnia and Albania (majority Muslim countries like Turkey) are European, as geographically they are located in Europe... religion plays no role in if consider a country to be in Europe or not. Again culture is not a factor for me. I would say that for example Irish, Italian and Romanian cultures are significantly different yet I would consider all to be part of Europe despite these differences. Even within for example Italy I would argue there is a difference in culture within the country - yet geographically I would class all regions of Italy as Italian, irrespective of divisions of culture within the country.

[SÓC]

Anyone know the name of the Arabic team in Israel who've been doing wonders, I think they even qualified for Europe this season?

[lopez]

Anyone know the name of the Arabic team in Israel who've been doing wonders, I think they even qualified for Europe this season?

Bnei Sakhnin

http://www.jkcook.net/EEE/N014.htm

There was also one of the Maccabi or Hapoel sides a few years ago with a large Arab following in one of the towns which claimed it had suffered from poor refereeing, racist crowds, etc.

[dcfcsteve]

(...cont due to going over 10000 characters)

You might also want to look into the incident at Otranto, Italy. A Turkish Fleet laid siege to the town killed 12,000 people, found another 800 survivors demanded they renounce their Catholicism, and when they didnt chopped marched them to the top of a hill and chopped their heads off. They then found the Bishop and sawed him in half. (Ref "Rough Guide to Italy" p 948-9). I'd describe that as "very bad", and although its might not be that much worse than what other countries youve listed have done, its quite a high number for about two weeks of combat. Again no appology that im aware of.

Other countries that have done very bad things to their neighbours have usually apologised for them in one way or another (eg Germany WWII, Serbia saying Srebrenica was "a dark day for Serbs and Serbian History" etc), but Turkish governments have persistantly failed to say sorry for things like the Armenian Genocide and the bad things the Ottomans did. That tends to cause problems vis-a-vis their relationships with nearby countries.




Well that is not the case for me. I think that both Bosnia and Albania (majority Muslim countries like Turkey) are European, as geographically they are located in Europe... religion plays no role in if consider a country to be in Europe or not. Again culture is not a factor for me. I would say that for example Irish, Italian and Romanian cultures are significantly different yet I would consider all to be part of Europe despite these differences. Even within for example Italy I would argue there is a difference in culture within the country - yet geographically I would class all regions of Italy as Italian, irrespective of divisions of culture within the country.

Very lengthy and well-researched response edmondo.

Too much to tackle point by point without hi-jacking the Foot.ie board though !

So one main response I would have is this. In terms of the key criteria you give for determining which continent a country 'belongs' to - location of land mass & population, shared borders, perceived geographical boundaries of Europe etc - Russia's arguement for being in Europe is much more tenuous than even Turkey's. Why aren't you and others on here who've been using such points to denounce Turkey's European credentials also doing the same with regards Russia ? You could say that it's because the debate has only been considering Turkey, and therefore you can only discuss what's been raised. But the debate here actually began with Israel - not Turkey. People here have chosen to bring Turkey into the debate in order to question it's claim/right to be European. Why are people choosing to use only Turkey as an example, when somewhere like Russia (and again, Cyprus) have even more tenuous claims upon being European ?

As I said before - geography is often used to deny Turkey European credentials by some people, who then fail to apply the same factors to other countries with similar/more tenuous European claims. This leads me to suspect that, consciously or subconsciously, there's broader issues at-play in rejecting Turkey's European-ness than mere geographical location. Primarily religious and cultural differences. Am I merely being paranoid in pointing out that Turkey seems to be everyone's favourite 'you're not part of Europe' whipping boy, even when there are better examples that could be used instead......?

[Schumi]

As I understand it, the traditional boundary between Europe and Asia is the Ural mountains, Ural river, Caucasus mountains and the Black Sea. This leaves part of Turkey in Europe and none of Israel.

[pineapple stu]

I always thought the small bit attached to Greece and Bulgaria (including Istanbul) was in Europe, while the rest was classified as Asia. You could argue that they could then choose which federation to be in as they straddle two continents? Would Cyprus being in UEFA be a legacy of the Greek ties?

Israel, Cyprus and Turkey are all in the Eurovision too - maybe it's not just a UEFA classification?

[Colbert Report]

Nobody has yet given an argument stating that Israel is part of the geography of Europe. Hence, they should not be allowed to compete in the UEFA qualifying groups. Period.

[Metrostars]

Nobody has yet given an argument stating that Israel is part of the geography of Europe. Hence, they should not be allowed to compete in the UEFA qualifying groups. Period.

So then you would also agree that Derry City should not be in the Eircom League because Derry City is not within the geographical borders of the Republic Of Ireland, right?