Ah please don't tell me we're back to the "Israel aren't killing enough Palestinians for it to be genocide" argument!Originally Posted by Glen Of Aherlow
I thought we'd left that behind on the Current Affairs thread.
Ah please don't tell me we're back to the "Israel aren't killing enough Palestinians for it to be genocide" argument!
I thought we'd left that behind on the Current Affairs thread.
We’re back to the ‘Israel are not actively pursuing the annihilation of an entire people ‘point.
There’s enough to criticise Netanyahu and Israel about without totally losing the plot
What I was referring to and you well know it, as you picked the year 1948 for a reason, was the Nakba, in which Israeli's displaced millions of Palestinians from their homes. Unlike the mythology perpetrated today, the land was not unoccupied, there was millions of Palestinians all over the Palestinian mandate, and they were displaced through war and ethnic cleansing into small pockets of land. The gaza strip and West Bank were not heavily populated areas in 1948, but when the Nakba was committed they were forced from other areas into smaller bits of land. Hence why people claim "the population increased so much they must have been left in good conditions". No, the population increased naturally but also through forced migration.And that nonsense of "the other Arab nations showed no sympathy to them". The Palestinians don't want to leave, the other Arab nations are doing the right thing not giving the Israeli's an option to cleanse them from the land completely. If Jordan or Egypt tomorrow said "we'll take Palestinian refugees", they would be cleansed completely from the area, never to return to their homes.The birth rate being high in Palestine did not increase the population to levels you proposed in Gaza, the Nakba did. And if you need evidence, the life expectancy was 65 pre war and about half the population was below 18
there's no right answers in this scenario.1) if we refuse to play, there's a very small chance that Kosovo do the same - and if that happens, maybe Uefa react. if Israel were getting 4 walkovers that probably makes the entire group untenable and maybe uefa are forced to react. can't see austria happening unless there's a chain reaction as a result. this would be the best case scenario, but it's highly highly unlikely. it would be similar to Poland and then the Swedes and Czechs following suit with Russia - then other unrelated countries said they wouldn't play in solidarity. So if that started something where Spain, Portugal, Norway, Denmark etc. all pledged not to play Israel, it could gain traction. Still, it's very unlikely. 2) Unless you get that result, that level of momentum behind you, then it feels like the Israeli FA would gladly take the 6 points from us if we refused to play and life probably just moves on. and probably it makes zero difference to them.3) Let's say the FAI decide it'll be played to avoid disciplinary action, but the Gardai say they can't certify the security and the game gets moved to Hungary or Germany. To me, that's the worst of all worlds. People can't protest when the Israelis are here, can't let their voices be heard in the stadium and the israelis can avoid the spotlight. The game is played. the whole thing benefits israel.4) the game is played here. people decide themselves if they want to attend, if they want to protest outside the stadium or inside the stadium or at the israeli hotel or how they wish to express their feelings
anyone else unable to use returns (new lines). i broke up the points with line breaks but something went wrong
It's a known issue, see the support forum
Only affects desktop use though, fine on mobile
I was thinking about this earlier.
As I see it the 2 key organistations in this at the moment are the FAI and the government. So what do each of them need?
The government, above anything else, need to get Meehole on a flight from Washington to Dublin on March 18th without any controversy.
The FAI, above anything else, need to get paid.
The way they came out so quickly with a statement, followed the next day with a statement from the Taoiseach, reeks of some sort of pre-agreed media strategy being implemented. From the moment the pots were revealed both organisations would have been aware of this draw being a distinct possibility.
The FAI didn't have to say anything as quickly as they did that. They could have given a holding statement saying they noted the draw and the FAI board would meet to discuss the matter. They could equally have said they would seek advice from the Department of Foreign Affairs and put the ball back in the Government's court. Either option would have made more sense than what they actually did.
The FAI went out of their way to do the government a big favour. They didn't have to do that, and I'm sure they recognised the value to the government of their doing that.
I very much doubt they did it out of the kindness of their hearts, and I suspect we will find out just how much they got before too long.
That's not to say that either party has a plan beyond Paddy's Day. This is probably still the phony-war stage, but the FAI surely got themselves a cheque for keeping a lid on this for a month.
Last edited by backstothewall; 17/02/2026 at 12:39 AM.
Bring Back Belfast Celtic F.C.
You're overthinking it. The FAI knew that drawing Israel was a one in four chance. They also knew that there would be calls to boycott the game from some quarters if that draw came up. So they had a pre-prepared statement ready to go in that eventuality to do what they could to get ahead of the boycott calls.
And it largely worked because, before the calls even properly started, the FAI had their position already on the public record. I doubt the government had much to do with it given the strained relationship between them, though of course who's to say it wasn't discussed at all. But linking the FAI statement to the March trip to Washington is stretching into conspiracy theory territory. I'd imagine both the FAI and the government are by and large doing their own thing.
Aye, but the NT was being used by the politicians/church, to further their own ends, not those of the NT or game itself.
And even there, this politicising of the team was purely for the optics (i.e. make the politicians/archbishop look good), since none of it made any practical difference whatever on the ground.
The one (only?) thing I'm sure everyone is agreed upon is that Football cannot exist in a vacuum and ignore the whole political context.
But in the end, the FAI should surely decide on what's best for the game itself. At which point should that prove unacceptable from a political point of view, it would then be for the politicians (or possibly the Gardai?) to step in and say: "No, you can't do that, here is what you must do instead" (forfeit, play at a neutral venue, ban away fans, or see the govt withhold Visas and then have to deal with UEFA etc).
Or quite simply, it should not be for the FAI to make political decisions, that's the politicians' job.
Of course I chose 1948 for a reason, it is the source of the problems which we are facing today! And as for the Nakba, I suspect I may know as least as much about that horror show as you, including that we are not talking of "millions displaced etc", the generally accepted figure is around 750k (still shocking, of course).
Anyhow, my overarching point was to try to refute the (frankly racist) claim that just about every Israeli wants to see every Palestinian scattered to the four winds, if not exterminated etc, a claim that is no more credible than eg that every Palestinian wants to see every Jew cleansed "from the river to the sea", Hamas-style.
Of course views have hardened on both sides since October 7th/the Israeli response etc, but outside observers who see only right on one side and only wrong on the other are exhibiting the exact same bigotry as they decry in "themmuns" - I shall leave it to you to decide where you stand on that.
Which is where I'll leave it, too. Meanwhile, my own (outside) observation on the football itself is to be found in my previous post.
I think the other concern for me is that a group of people are trying to project their own personal/political views relating to overseas matters onto our national football team, regardless of whether it's the majority view of the supporters or not. There's a kind of holier than thou element to it, where people who want international football to remain about international football are being told that there's something wrong with their team being allowed to exist purely for football purposes, and that a particular viewpoint that these people hold about a situation in another country a couple of thousand miles away has to take sway for everyone.
Ultimately, nobody is forcing anyone to go to the game. But this group wants to force everyone to not go to the game, indeed they want to force a situation where the game can't even be played. Much as I hold a similar political viewpoint to these people about Israel/Palestine, I think it's entirely inappropriate to try and push that viewpoint to the extent that it determines whether our national football team can play a game in their home stadium in Dublin or not.
And, to be frank, those that think their political views are of such importance that they should override every other viewpoint relating to what is, once again, a football game, can politely **** off.
The match is going ahead lads. The only real question remaining is whether it happens in Dublin or not and to me that's the real soccer debate - no way should we let this go overseas. Bear in mind our lads need to go over there as well and I can't imagine there'll be much of a travelling fan base so first and foremost the FAI need to consider the safety of our players.
I'm completely against everything Israel is doing and like many I yearn for Palestine to be free but I don't think a boycott is going to help anyone. Raising awareness that UEFA is in breach of its own statutes is what everyone should be making noise about and we can use the Dublin match to bring international attention to that reality.
Absolutely! I am very conscious that I enjoy all the benefits of foot.ie only because of the time and work of the moderators, but Dermobohs' comment should not have been published.
I don't think there are many people that are insisting on a particular view point as being "the only", I think even someone as "idealistic" as I am, can acknowledge, this game is likely to go ahead, and there is a portion (couldn't possibly gauge if its a huge portion/majority/minority) that just don't want sport and politics to mix.But to me that boat sailed a long time ago. Look at the world cup coming, the previous 2 before this one, the one in 2030 that was purely designed to engineer a situation that gives the 2034 world cup to the Saudi's and tell me there's no politics in sport. If there wasn't England would have hosted the world cup before Qatar got it.It comes down to then, what do the politics of the time dictate, for example, its currently appropriate to exclude Russian teams, from club and country competitions. At the moment the political framing and social pressures are colliding over Israel. The politics are saying "nothing to see here" and Uefa are happily ignoring their own rules to allow Israel to continue competing. But socially there is a movement trying to isolate them. The issue with all this is, people don't want Ireland to take the stand as "the high morale ground is a lonely place to be", and ireland not playing the match will only at the moment, affect Ireland. In terms of points received, seeding, fines etc, and some Ireland fans are saying "why give up these things when it won't change anything".To me its as simple as this, if it was up to me, Ireland takes a stand, forces wider conversations, puts pressure on uefa to abide by their own rules, and hopefully gets others to join in and support. I accept, that is crazy to others. But that is a perspective.What I can't understand is why you and others, are framing this perspective as "holier than though", what do you mean by that? I'm open to any conversations and willing to have my opinions changed. I've never once commented on my perspective being "better than" anyone else's. So this phrase, that has come up repeatedly, what do you mean by that?I fully accept, some people are willing to watch the game, and would do no matter what the status of war/ceasefire/peace is in Israel/Palestine. But I do think as a former colony in the western world, we do have a unique perspective that other countries may not have. And it's not only possible, but expected that when scenarios like this come up, Irish people will feel a need to speak up and use their platform to highlight something.I can accept that to some, "giving up points, seeding, fines, not being able to watch the match in Dublin", is too much for some fans.But I don't think you or others have accepted that to another portion of the public, it is unacceptable to allow a regime like the current Israeli government be part of the social fabric of international community, playing the game is normalising that behaviour.I think you're framing of intolerance of other opinions from one side is actually very "pot kettle"
Can you point to any of that actually happening though?
I don't see anyone doing that.
You've an awful habit of making sweeping statements that don't seem to be reflected in anything anyone's saying (Or at best you're taking random Twitter posts, which hardly counts as anything substantive, certainly in terms of the debate here)
First bit is definitely true - even the Yugoslavia game went ahead in the end.
Second bit - I'm confused what you mean here. What's the non-overseas non-Dublin alternative?
I'll explain why I thanked his post. There are two or three very active threads over on YBIG where a sizeable enough minority are pushing for an all out boycott - including a full on fan boycott - under the guise of it a) being the right thing and b) the only right thing - for example, going to the game and protesting visibly and audibly would not be a suitable alternative (which, for me, in the circumstances feels like far and away the most effective form of getting the point across). The tone of what is being posted there is holier than thou and pretty insufferable.
I like high energy football. A little bit rock and roll. Many finishes instead of waiting for the perfect one.
What does that mean? And can you give an example beyond a loose notion and feeling?
An example of what? The posts on the other site? Ah come on, there's dozens of pages of posts... one that stands out in the memory is people being referred to "spineless c*nts" for daring to attend a game against Israel instead of boycotting. A few posts from a lunatic called Het-field over the weekend were particularly galling.
Is this what you wanted?The moment you attend a UEFA fixture with Israel involved is the moment you legitimise their ongoing participation. Anything after that is totally performative.
I like high energy football. A little bit rock and roll. Many finishes instead of waiting for the perfect one.
If Russia weren’t currently banned and were drawn against Ireland , it would be interesting to see how many would be calling for a boycott/ protest etc .
I imagine quite a few would be more likely to hold a protest against NATO
Aside from the likes of Clare Daly, there aren't too many Putin sympathisers here, in fairness.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks