Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

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

19091939596114

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,396 ✭✭✭Paddy_Mag


    Nobody will go to see friendlies. The whole nations league concept was created so friendlies clupd be done away with as they were poorly attended and had no TV rights values

    What tournaments are non UEFA that we can compete in?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 25,000 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    So, you admit you were lying then?

    Or are we just going to gloss over that so you can continue to make excuses as to why we as a nation should continue to participate in (or more realistically, fail to qualify for) corrupt tournaments?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,396 ✭✭✭Paddy_Mag




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,786 ✭✭✭✭Red Silurian


    Every form of protest is virtue signaling unless it is also followed up by action. I see no indication that our govt are going to send our army in to Palestine to protect its people. The majority of the people who protest on the streets every Saturday rarely go any further than that.

    That doesn't make protest the wrong thing to do so long as it remains peaceful



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,253 ✭✭✭Sudden Valley


    The boycott is the action. As was the original boycott that gave us the word and the boycott against South Africa. Virtue signaling is just a lazy criticism usually used by those mostly on the Right. May as well call protests Woke.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,786 ✭✭✭✭Red Silurian


    Well… What's the opposite of woke, asleep?

    Arguably boycotts only work when large swathes of the world join forces and, as we saw in the Eurovision, I don't see that happening anytime soon with Israel.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,253 ✭✭✭Sudden Valley


    There is no opposite as its a nonsense culture war term, like virtue signalling.

    All boycotts start off small even the South African one. Nothing would be ever achieved if defeat was pronounced at the very beginning.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,394 ✭✭✭Enduro


    Well if you're going to be consistent, show me where you posted the
    "some" Israelis bit. I don't see it. All I see is what I already quoted
    in my previous post. Which wasn't a dig by the way. Just a
    clarification.

    I wrote the following two sentences in sequence. I had intended for them to be read together in totality. It seems I should have used a comma instead of a full stop to make that clearer:

    Israelis are not collectively punishing Palestinians. The Israeli government is.

    The "some" Israelis I was referring to are the Israeli government. Hopefully I've cleaned that up, and you understand what I'm attempting to say.

    If collective punishment is a war crime (great, I'm glad to hear it!), then Israelis should not be collectively punished for the actions of their government, or for the actions of IDF members committing war crimes. If you're being consistent, then that would also be criminal. The individuals responsible should be the ones actually held responsible and appropriately punished.

    If any members of the Israeli football team have committed war crimes (or any other crimes, for that matter), then they should be appropriately held to account. Any members who haven't committed war crimes should not be held accountable for the actions of others.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,960 ✭✭✭csirl


    I think we're going around in circles and everyones views are very clear. So now lets see some predictions on the outcome. Im not asking what people would like to happen. Im asking people to use tbeir knowledge of the situation to predict the outcome (even if tbey dont like the outcome).

    Q. Will the game be played?

    Prediction: Yes.

    Q. Will players boycott it,?

    Prediction: No.

    Q. Where and under what conditions will it be played?

    Prediction: In another European country with restrictions on fan attendence.

    Q. Will there be protests at the game?

    Prediction: No. But a small group of protestors will travel to the host city, but be kept well away by local police. Some will be arrested.

    Q. What will happen afterwards?

    Prediction: UEFA will seek reassurances from the Irish government over security at Dublins Euro28 games. The government will give those assurances.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,059 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Any members who haven't committed war crimes should not be held accountable for the actions of others.

    This is pretty much inevitable in any boycott though - that people will lose out who have done nothing to merit that.

    A boycott of Nestle products will impact on those who do nothing other than work to put food on the table, even when it's aimed at those in the business involved in horrible marketing practices in developing countries.

    It may well be the case that there are Israeli footballers who are privately appalled by what's happening in Gaza and now Lebanon.

    But it's both impossible to implement a boycott that only punishes those who really deserve it - it could never be accurately determined in all cases (and even if it could, are we really going to go public and say that actually, this Israeli footballer is grand because we discovered that in fact, he's ashamed of the IDF? I'm sure he'd really appreciate that).

    And it also misses the point, which is that one aim of a boycott is to generate pressure for change from within the country/company under boycott, by those who are pissed off about being unfairly punished.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,396 ✭✭✭Paddy_Mag


    You left out FAI leaving UEFA and joining a non existent ethical sporting body and play a series of friendlies over the next 20 years.

    Other then that spot on. Don't think anything will change any time soon. Both games will be in Hungary apparently.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,059 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Seeing as how you are back on thread, would you be able to specify which IRB laws were broken by South Africa that lead to their exclusion from the 1987 and 1991 Rugby World Cups, as you claimed earlier?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,741 ✭✭✭✭nacho libre


    So do you think they should be banned,pj?

    It seems you also struggle with the same issue. I mean who said Ireland alone could get them banned. The argument was Ireland taking a stand might create a snowball effect.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,396 ✭✭✭Paddy_Mag


    What if it doesn't create a snowball effect? Are the consequences to the FAI worth it?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,741 ✭✭✭✭nacho libre


    Well we will never know now seeing as the games are going ahead. So the best thing now is for the Irish football team to win the games in a resounding manner and move on.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,394 ✭✭✭Enduro




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,394 ✭✭✭Enduro


    Well, some boycotts can be quite well targetted. The orginal Captain Boycott was!

    I'd say the trade sanctions against occupied territories are well targetted. Similarly all the various sanctions on current Israeli ministers, and some particular West Bank settlers.

    IMO targetted is better than overly broad. There's a danger that broad sanctions that cast too wide a net will just cause even more retrenchment, with a now valid call that "they're out to get us all". That's been pointed out as an effect of the US/Israeli strikes on Iran, whereby it unifies a previously rebellious population behind the ruling regime.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,396 ✭✭✭Paddy_Mag


    Any chance of you backing up your false claim...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,396 ✭✭✭Paddy_Mag




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,960 ✭✭✭csirl


    As expected. I think the pro-palestinians over estimate their support in this country. Good to see common sense prevails.

    Interesting that the Government had to amend the motiion to say its a matter for the FAI due to the perception of government influence - a couple of posters on this thread were slated for raising this issue. Turns out they're right.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,383 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    No doubt they will continue to claim its an extremely important issue and that a large majority agrees the game has to be stopped.
    Plenty more time will be wasted on repeats of this again.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,513 ✭✭✭Rocket_GD


    Every motion brought forward by an opposition party is defeated.
    This is nothing new and doesn’t define the level of support for Palestinians in the country by any means.

    Are you still trying to trot out the nonsensical notion that sports and politics aren’t intertwined?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,960 ✭✭✭csirl


    Turns out Im right - government cant interfere.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,513 ✭✭✭Rocket_GD


    That’s not what I asked at all, why misrepresent what I said?

    Government very much can interfere.
    They did when demanding the FAI appear in front of the Oireachtas committee. They did when they bailed out the FAI with public funds.

    This government is choosing not to on this matter.

    Again I’ll ask, why are you still trotting out the nonsensical notion that sports and politics aren’t intertwined?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,059 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    That's all fine. We are now getting into the pros and cons of different forms of boycott - more broad or more targetted.

    Could it cause entrenchment? I guess so.

    Could it generate pressure for change? I think that's more likely.

    But boycotts are fundamentally different to military action, and I don't think you can assume similar responses to both.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,059 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Morning!

    Any update on the specific violations of IRB laws that lead to South Africa not being allowed the enter the 1987 and 1991 world cups, as you claimed yesterday?

    In the event that you haven't been able to find anything specific, would you then agree that what the IRB did was actually unrelated to their own laws, but in reaction to wider public pressure?

    If so, using your own logic, it appears that you would consider such a ban on South African rugby to have been something unjustified and unfair.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,396 ✭✭✭Paddy_Mag


    FAI are not obliged to attend an oireachtas hearing

    The govt can hold anyone to account who receives public money. Thats not interference.

    The government have far bigger at problems that they should be focused on fixing.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,960 ✭✭✭csirl


    +1

    There are conditions attached to public funding including ensuring it is spent as intended.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,960 ✭✭✭csirl


    Not true.

    This was not a vote on legislation, funding or anything to do with the Programme for Government. It was the Dail, as a collective, expressing a non-binding view on an issue outside of government. If the motion had succeeded it would have no impact on the government.

    One of tbe responsibilities of living in a democracy is accepting the outcome of democratic decisions.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,960 ✭✭✭csirl


    South Africa did not have a unified National Federation in the 80s - this only happened after appartide ended.

    It had different rugby bodies for different races (which itself is wtong) Up to the 80s, the SARB, which was the "whites only" body fielded "South Africa^ teams.

    By most definitions, the SARB did not fulfill tbe criteria of being a National Federation - as it wasnt. It did not represent the entire sport and did not function as a National Governing Body.



Advertisement
Advertisement