Anti-semitic pogroms in Europe in 2024

[bjn]

FWIW I expect Israel to be banned from the competition... given Russia is banned and the UN has yet to determine whether it committed genocide in Ukraine, whereas the UN has already determined Israel has committed genocide in Gaza.

Which begs the question, should teams from countries persuing genocidal policies be allowed to play in the UK?

[headshot]

FWIW I expect Israel to be banned from the competition... given Russia is banned and the UN has yet to determine whether it committed genocide in Ukraine, whereas the UN has already determined Israel has committed genocide in Gaza.

Which begs the question, should teams from countries persuing genocidal policies be allowed to play in the UK?

FIFA banned Russia after Ukraine.

FIFA has not banned Israel despite the UN concluding that they’ve committed genocide.

So there’s that.

Though that’s probably not the reason the WMP have banned the fans. It’s probably because they incited violence in Amsterdam.

The reaction to that violence in Amsterdam was equally abhorrent, but surely no-one can argue that the Maccabi fans were the victims here.

Would the violence towards Jewish communities in Amsterdam have happened if Maccabi fans hadn’t turned up and kicked things off? Perhaps. Maybe there was a section of society looking for a reason to attack Jews.

The Maccabi fans’ actions made things much worse for the local Jewish communities.

Perhaps WMP had intelligence of Maccabi fans planning trouble and were worried about an escalation. Sure, multiple parties would be to blame, but sometimes the best way to prevent a fire is to remove the catalyst.

[Grumble]

The Maccabi fans being Jewish is tied up with their hooliganism, but the main problem is the hooliganism. I don’t think Protestants or Unionists are a problem because of the antics (largely in the past I think) of Rangers fans.

[Tristan]

Though that’s probably not the reason the WMP have banned the fans. It’s probably because they incited violence in Amsterdam.

The reaction to that violence in Amsterdam was equally abhorrent, but surely no-one can argue that the Maccabi fans were the victims here.

Would the violence towards Jewish communities in Amsterdam have happened if Maccabi fans hadn’t turned up and kicked things off? Perhaps. Maybe there was a section of society looking for a reason to attack Jews.

The Maccabi fans’ actions made things much worse for the local Jewish communities.

Perhaps WMP had intelligence of Maccabi fans planning trouble and were worried about an escalation. Sure, multiple parties would be to blame, but sometimes the best way to prevent a fire is to remove the catalyst.

As I said before, I imagine you wouldn't dream of writing about it in those terms if something like the below happened:

With all the St George's crosses that have been going up I wonder how people would have reacted in the following scenario:
- A group of Asian guys goes around a town taking down some of the St George's crosses and burning them, offensively chanting as they do
- A white cabbie shouts back at them and has his cab attacked
- The local racists start some whatsapp groups and talk about going "P*ki bashing"
- The local racists, helped by local white cabbies, start going around town finding muslims and Asians to beat up
- They conduct multiple hit and run attacks across town and send some of the Asians to hospital.

And with regards to this on the reason for the ban:

Though that’s probably not the reason the WMP have banned the fans. It’s probably because they incited violence in Amsterdam.

There's no evidence that this is probably the reason. It's equally likely that they had intelligence that violence would be directed towards them.

[Grumble]

There's no evidence that this is probably the reason. It's equally likely that they had intelligence that violence would be directed towards them.

Don’t be silly Tristan, we’ve witnessed Maccabi fans being violent this year. This is not a lingering reputation which you might argue is outdated for England fans, it’s clearly here and now.

[Tristan]

There's no evidence that this is probably the reason. It's equally likely that they had intelligence that violence would be directed towards them.

Don’t be silly Tristan, we’ve witnessed Maccabi fans being violent this year. This is not a lingering reputation which you might argue is outdated for England fans, it’s clearly here and now.

There are many fans out there with violent fans that don't have their fans banned in total. It is equally likely, given what happened in Amsterdam last year, that the risk they saw was in violence towards them, which we saw on a large scale last year.

[Sciolus]

There are also clubs out there with violent fans that do have their fans banned in total. Pearl-clutching article from a month ago.

[Grumble]

If you think you have a powder keg in your city you don’t invite someone in with a lit match who will gleefully stick the match everywhere they can.

[headshot]

If you think you have a powder keg in your city you don’t invite someone in with a lit match who will gleefully stick the match everywhere they can.

In Tristan’s version of this metaphor, the person holding the lit match desperately trying to find a powder keg to light is acting in good faith and just wants to enjoy watching the powder keg storage championships.

[headshot]

There are also clubs out there with violent fans that do have their fans banned in total. Pearl-clutching article from a month ago.

It took my a few seconds to find several examples of this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/ar ... wk1jgn15lo

https://sports.yahoo.com/article/inter- ... 33534.html

https://www.reuters.com/sports/soccer/f ... 025-10-17/

[Tristan]

I get the “lit match” analogy, but it doesn’t really fit. In Amsterdam most of the violence was directed at Maccabi fans, not by them. As I’ve said before they’re not saints, and anyone who’s seen them at away games knows some of them can be loud, antagonistic and obnoxious. But that’s true of plenty of fanbases, and it doesn’t justify treating them as if they’re asking for violence.

What may be driving the concern this time is the threat towards them. Asrar Rashid, a Birmingham-based Islamic scholar, said in a lecture posted to YouTube on in October that when Maccabi come to Birmingham “we will not show them mercy.” That’s a threat.

So if there’s a “powder keg”, the focus probably should be on those promising to attack them. That hasn’t been part of the narrative enough so far. Banning Maccabi fans because others might target them is the police taking the path of least resistance and calling it prudence.

[headshot]

Chanting “Death to Arabs” while pulling down Palestinian flags is a variety of asking for violence isn’t it?

[Tristan]

That’s kind of the point though. You can call out that chanting for what it is, ugly and indefensible, without implying it makes violence against them understandable.

Once you start talking about people “asking for violence”, you’re edging into justifying the threats that have been made. That’s not calling for accountability, it’s excusing aggression.

I don’t think it’s the kind of justification people would use in other contexts. My hypothetical of Asians taking down St George’s flags and chanting obnoxiously would absolutely not get this kind of reaction if it led to white racists beating them up. There’d be an understandable outcry if a legal event with lots of Muslims was banned in the area because of previous violence aimed at them as a “response” to them taking down those flags.

The police still have a duty to protect visiting fans, however obnoxious some of them might be. If the response to threats is to keep the side away, that’s not prudence, it’s capitulation.

[Grumble]

That’s kind of the point though. You can call out that chanting for what it is, ugly and indefensible, without implying it makes violence against them understandable.

Once you start talking about people “asking for violence”, you’re edging into justifying the threats that have been made. That’s not calling for accountability, it’s excusing aggression.

I don’t think it’s the kind of justification people would use in other contexts. My hypothetical of Asians taking down St George’s flags and chanting obnoxiously would absolutely not get this kind of reaction if it led to white racists beating them up. There’d be an understandable outcry if a legal event with lots of Muslims was banned in the area because of previous violence aimed at them as a “response” to them taking down those flags.

The police still have a duty to protect visiting fans, however obnoxious some of them might be. If the response to threats is to keep the side away, that’s not prudence, it’s capitulation.

The police have a duty to keep the peace, and if that means banning individuals or groups who are likely to disturb the peace from entering an area then they have the powers to do that.

[bob sterman]

The police have a duty to keep the peace, and if that means banning individuals or groups who are likely to disturb the peace from entering an area then they have the powers to do that.

Technical - but significant point - in this instance the police have not used that sort of legislation to ban any individuals / groups from entering an area.

They have contributed to the Birmingham's Safety Advisory Group - a body convened by Birmingham City Council. And the council have issued a safety certificate to Aston Villa allowing the match to go ahead but only without away supporters. If Villa admitted away fans - and held the match without following the terms of their safety certificate - the club could be fined.

This is quite different from police banning a class of people from entering an area.