Ireland vs Israel - To play or not to play, that is the question Read OP for Mod Warning

Moving a final from a country that's at war that doesn't involve any teams from that country and banning that nation's FA at all levels from all international competitions are two different things.

Stick your head up your arse all you want and ignore what you wish Mr. "I don't care", but Poland, Sweden and the Czech's still put UEFA and FIFA in an awkward position with regards to Russia and international competition. Claiming they had "nothing" do do with it is just fucking stupid.

In addition I see you also completely ignored the issue of UEFA and FIFA's complete double standard with regards to Israel.

But then again, you claim not to "care" about that either despite coming in here day after day and junkposting your drivel.

Play the game in Dublin to a full house and abuse the away team for 90 mins, easy.

PA system to break during away teams anthem

Away teams hotel fire alarm to activate every 30 min

Ireland 3 points

A, obviously. But that's a meaningless question. I'd rather end the war tomorrow than have to talk about a protest or a boycott. That doesn't make protests or boycotts pointless. You're comparing a fantasy option to a real-world decision to avoid discussing the real-world decision

Ugghh. You and your buddies pretending to not understand basic common sense is extremely tedious to be honest.

Your entire argument boils down to:

Because the FAI can't do everything, it should do nothing.

Thats not a serious principle. If it were, we'd never ask anyone to take a stand on anything unless they had the power to solve the entire problem itself.

Thats why this discussion keeps going in circles again

And again

And again...

You're not actually arguing against an FAI boycott anymore. You're arguing against a position nobody is taking - that an FAI boycott is the only action that matters

Nobody is saying that only Paddy and his merry band of neutral buddies who can't condemn mass warcrimes and a starvation campaign against civilians as long as a country they don't support are doing them

People can lobby governments and support an FAI boycott simultaneously.

Goodnight

The problem you have is that what people are saying happened with Russia, didnt in fact happen. It people doing 2+2 and getting 5.

The published CAS ruling nakes it very clear that the Russian FA was not suspended due to their govetnment attacking Ukraine.

Wht happened is the IOC suspended various Russian sports organisations and FIFA implemented the IOC suspension.

More lies and nonsense. It's amazing you can get things so arseways, all for a country you "don't defend" but cannot address or condemn the genocide we are being told they are committing - the basis for the thing you are arguing against.

A boycott involves:

No angry mob.

No violence.

Boycotts are one of the oldest and most peaceful forms of political expression there is, and are literally the opposite of vigilantism.

Nobody is taking the law into their own hands. Nobody is threatening anyone.

People advocating this are requesting an organisation make a voluntary decision about who it wishes to play against. That's freedom of association.

By your warped logic again...Dunnes Stores strike, consumer boycotts, trade union boycotts and countless peaceful campaigns throughout history were all examples of an "angry mob". Is this what you are saying?

First, sport and politics were supposedly separate.

Then South Africa was different because sporting bodies breached inclusion rules.

Now we're expected to believe the anti-apartheid sporting boycott wasn't really about apartheid at all.

Your argument has become so narrow and technical that it isn't describing what actually happened.

Just to reiterate your last rundown points:

Protection of civilians = supporting war

Sweeping everything under the carpet as people are being butchered = supporting peace

Opposing a football fixture = "vigilante"

peaceful boycott = an "angry mob"

Sport should be seperate from politics, except South Africa

South African boycotts were a technical rule seperate from the politics of apartheid

Etc etc

Every time one argument falls apart, a new one appears.

All this nonsense, in defence of what???

"In defence of peace" but peaceful protestors are vigilantes or an angry mob.

They threw tennis balls onto the pitch against Qatar and we were told these "missiles" could hurt people as they're thrown from a height.

Fair play to you for continuing to calmy and eloquently respond to these people who falsely claim to represent "both sides" or "don't care about either" while only ever criticising Palestinians.

1. The FAI have a right to display humanitarian messaging
2. If the game is boycotted or moved to a neutral venue there will be no profit anyway

Add a few quid to the price of a ticket to pay the fines if they have to but I'd first make the argument that they are humanitarian in nature

I'm not sure of any insurance company will pay out for a decision being made that really doesn't need to be

Look, we played Qatar, there was a protest inside the stadium, we can't go back in time and un-play the team to be fair. I assume that's the genocidal state you speak of, or was it Oman?

While I admit I'm being facetious with that comment, and am in no way an Israeli supporter, we should also not be allowed to pick and choose which teams we don't play against. Over the years we've had no problem playing against many countries that would make you sick if you saw what was going on.

Recent case in point, there's a growing suggestion, started by an Irish pub in Edinburgh, that we support the Ivory Coast in the upcoming World Cup because all we need to do is flip our flag upside down. A state with a 37% prevalence of FGM should get our support now… Let that sink in