Lozfox1978
The eternal pessimist
going to be disciplined by FA for posting pro Palestine tweet
Hamza
- Thread starter Lozfox1978
- Start date
T
Tuz_Not_Tuzz
Guest
What if the gesture was the nazi salute??? should that be allowed?
They aren't the govt (FIFA's non-interference directive makes sure of that), they make their own rules on what's allowable whether we like it or not.
The fact that they might discipline him for this, and it now looks like the 2034 WC is going to Saudi Arabia, really does show up football's total hypocrisy about political matters not just the FA.
hackneyfox
Roofer
Posted or liked a 'from the river to the sea' tweet - apparently the same thing El Ghazi got sacked for.
It's allegedly a bit more than a pro Palastinian tweet.
Last edited:
Club_B00k_Crutchless
Registered
Supporting anti-racism and gay rights isn't political.
David_Nish
Roofer
The from the River to the Sea song is an old Palestine Liberation number. Of course Israel doesn’t like it, they are occupying the same land.
Sammy George
Roofer
Football & professional footballers should keep out of politics. They are in the entertainment business, if I go to a concert I never see the performers take the knee.
QPR last Saturday was quite refreshing, no minutes silence/applause ( which happens so much now it has demeaned the original intention), no taking the knee or any other political gesture.
Hamza is a very average player & obviously not very bright. If he gets punished over this he only has himself to blame
QPR last Saturday was quite refreshing, no minutes silence/applause ( which happens so much now it has demeaned the original intention), no taking the knee or any other political gesture.
Hamza is a very average player & obviously not very bright. If he gets punished over this he only has himself to blame
jackieguaccamo
Flat Earther
youre not suggesting that Hamza wants all the Jews removed from Israel are you, so the Palestinians can have their land back?
jackieguaccamo
Flat Earther
As Jordan said, this faux support for Ukraine, BLM, blokes in dresses etc has been led by the FA, what’s the problem with a footballer showing his support for what he believes in?
jackieguaccamo
Flat Earther
Really?
swabianfox
Rare Continental Breed
I heard the phrase "From the river to the sea, Palestine shall/will be free!" for the first time about 20 years ago, and I instantly knew what it meant and what it still means: said "river" is the River Jordan, and said "sea" is the Mediterranean Sea.
If everything in between those two lines shall/will be Palestine, according to those who say and write it, where's the room for Israel and the Jews? Look at a map! Exactly, and that's precisely what the phrase means: it implies the destruction of Israel.
Hamza said his post was "misinterpreted". I'm sorry but it's the other way round: HE used a well-known and (I think) more than 40 years old phrase that is widely considered offensive and antisemitic, and it was HIM that used it. So it was HIS mistake, not vice versa!
To his credit, he apologised and in all likelihood didn't understand or mean the implications but El Ghazi from Mainz 05 got suspended for the same thing (he's back at Mainz 05 now, apparently)!
If everything in between those two lines shall/will be Palestine, according to those who say and write it, where's the room for Israel and the Jews? Look at a map! Exactly, and that's precisely what the phrase means: it implies the destruction of Israel.
Hamza said his post was "misinterpreted". I'm sorry but it's the other way round: HE used a well-known and (I think) more than 40 years old phrase that is widely considered offensive and antisemitic, and it was HIM that used it. So it was HIS mistake, not vice versa!
To his credit, he apologised and in all likelihood didn't understand or mean the implications but El Ghazi from Mainz 05 got suspended for the same thing (he's back at Mainz 05 now, apparently)!
DagenhamFox
Blue Roofer
A Mainz player was suspended from playing for a few weeks for a similar offence. Mainz reinstated him this week.
David_Nish
Roofer
2 peoples claim the same bit of land. Both have perfectly valid claims. The only possible solution long term is for them to share it. Why is it acceptable for one of the people not to have a say in it? Genuine question.
WestYorksFox
Roofer
Unless I've missed something and he's also been posting lots of anti-semitic stuff on X / Twitter good on him for having an opinion - a lot of people can't arsed at all. You can be a muslim, compassionate for people in a humanitarian disaster zone without being a terrorist sympathiser just as you should be able to express a distrust of the state of Israel and not be accused of being anti-semitic. Problem is, social programming wants to stick people onto one side or the other and remove any sort of reasonable debate or free thought. Just stop killing people you twats (on either side).
swabianfox
Rare Continental Breed
Who says it's acceptable?
Two people sharing the land in question is not what the debated phrase implies though, and Hamas' actions speak louder than words how they interpret it.
There have been many proposals over the decades since 1948 regarding a viable two-state solution. For many different reasons they have all failed. Sadly, a solution appears further away than ever. I don't have one either.
In fact, about twenty years ago I did have a lot of sympathy for the Palestinian cause and even went to some demonstrations and gave out leaflets and so on. My (albeit brief) experiences with that "scene" made me alter my views considerably though - and recent words and actions seem to confirm my views. Sadly.
Quickly edited to delete a blatant misunderstanding on my part. Sorry to anyone that saw it.
jackieguaccamo
Flat Earther
Would that be because the Rothchilds gave the land to the Jews in 1948? Land that was formerly Palestinian land?
Club_B00k_Crutchless
Registered
Just some of the posts here demonstrate why this is such a difficult one to resolve, but in the meantime can both sides stop killing innocent people.
swabianfox
Rare Continental Breed
My understanding of the history:
The land in question was under British Mandate until 1948 after the collapse of the Ottoman empire. The British messed up though, to the best of my knowledge promising the land to both parties. Out of their depth with civil unrest and so on, they handed over to the UN which came up with and respectively approved a partition plan in 1947.
Israel accepted that plan and declared independence in 1948. The five neighbouring Arab countries didn't accept it and immediately declared war on Israel which they lost.
The term "Palestinian land" is debatable. There was no country of such name, and there is probably no distinct Palestinian ethnicity. You can probably argue for centuries whose land it is, and it's likely both parties can rightfully make a claim it's theirs.
It is a very messy story with lots of political mistakes, and it hasn't been pretty since then either. At the end of the day though, founding Israel was a UN decision which, sadly to this day and more than 70 years later, does not appear to be fully accepted by too many entitities. Which brings us back to Hamza's post and its implications.
The land in question was under British Mandate until 1948 after the collapse of the Ottoman empire. The British messed up though, to the best of my knowledge promising the land to both parties. Out of their depth with civil unrest and so on, they handed over to the UN which came up with and respectively approved a partition plan in 1947.
Israel accepted that plan and declared independence in 1948. The five neighbouring Arab countries didn't accept it and immediately declared war on Israel which they lost.
The term "Palestinian land" is debatable. There was no country of such name, and there is probably no distinct Palestinian ethnicity. You can probably argue for centuries whose land it is, and it's likely both parties can rightfully make a claim it's theirs.
It is a very messy story with lots of political mistakes, and it hasn't been pretty since then either. At the end of the day though, founding Israel was a UN decision which, sadly to this day and more than 70 years later, does not appear to be fully accepted by too many entitities. Which brings us back to Hamza's post and its implications.
swabianfox
Rare Continental Breed
Agreed. It goes back even further. You also have to take into account the story of Herzl's Zionist movement which started in Europe and lead to significant Jewish migration (and civil unrest) into the area prior to 1948, fleeing from prosecution, the 3rd Reich and so.
sixthswan
Non-Member
Also who were the original inhabitants of Canaan, Israel, Palestine or whatever it should be called...
This all predates Judaism and Islam - which seems to be the us vs. them scenario for a lot of people...with good old Christianity mixed in.
They all have origins in the same spiritual source, but have sadly become religions of faith, rather than spirituality.
The name Palestine originates from Ancient Egypt and it's current phrasing is Roman.
It's all about conquest, power, religion and all that shit, on both sides...
Cut through the bullshit and there could be a solution.
Hamas can fuck off. The Israeli government can fuck off. They both cause the people to suffer...
This all predates Judaism and Islam - which seems to be the us vs. them scenario for a lot of people...with good old Christianity mixed in.
They all have origins in the same spiritual source, but have sadly become religions of faith, rather than spirituality.
The name Palestine originates from Ancient Egypt and it's current phrasing is Roman.
It's all about conquest, power, religion and all that shit, on both sides...
Cut through the bullshit and there could be a solution.
Hamas can fuck off. The Israeli government can fuck off. They both cause the people to suffer...
LGFOX
Roofer
Spot on. As one senior analyst of the area said the other day, both sides are sadly very poorly led.
Netanyahu is quite possibly THE worst, or one of the worst Isreali PM’s in history and there’s been a few. He knows he was pretty much hated by whole swathes of the Israeli population before October 7th. He sees this politically as his 9/11 whereby he can be looked back in history as one of the best if he destroys Hamas. He hides behind his big brother USA yet he is just a total narcissistic bully. I feel immensely sorry for those kidnapped Israelis. They’ve no chance with this guy in charge and his far right wing cabinet.
swabianfox
Rare Continental Breed
There is a significant difference between Hamas in particular (and, to some extent, other Palestinian organisations) on one hand, and the Israeli state and government on the other hand.
Hamas is an islamistic terror organisation. Its core is antisemitic, they want to destroy Israel, and they are more akin to an islamist death cult (e.g. ISIS/Daesh). They operate through violence, and they cannot be voted out. Fatah and its leader Abbas were elected but had power ripped from them by Hamas, and Abbas has not dared to run another election for fifteen years or so. I don't think "Palestine" has anything resembling a constitution, and the various chartas (PLO, Hamas) also dispute the right of Israel's existence. Hamas is very much corrupt. I'm not sure what would happen if somebody in Gaza demonstrated for peace with Israel!
Israel, on the other hand, is a democratic state, Western style. For all its weaknesses and mistakes, it has mechanisms to correct them. Netanyahu (I don't know too much about him, to be honest) can be voted out. There are courts of law. They have a functioning economy. They have excellent universities. They have a reasonably free press. They allow for and have a peace movement with Palestine. And so on and so on.
If I had to make a choice, there is no question where I wanted to live.
I don't agree to this "both sides" balance argument which is coming across in #22 and #23! The conflict and the systemic positions are, as far as the above positions are concerned, very much imbalanced. Which is another problem in resolving the conflict but which is also the reason I very much side with Israel these days (it hasn't always been like that).
Hamas is an islamistic terror organisation. Its core is antisemitic, they want to destroy Israel, and they are more akin to an islamist death cult (e.g. ISIS/Daesh). They operate through violence, and they cannot be voted out. Fatah and its leader Abbas were elected but had power ripped from them by Hamas, and Abbas has not dared to run another election for fifteen years or so. I don't think "Palestine" has anything resembling a constitution, and the various chartas (PLO, Hamas) also dispute the right of Israel's existence. Hamas is very much corrupt. I'm not sure what would happen if somebody in Gaza demonstrated for peace with Israel!
Israel, on the other hand, is a democratic state, Western style. For all its weaknesses and mistakes, it has mechanisms to correct them. Netanyahu (I don't know too much about him, to be honest) can be voted out. There are courts of law. They have a functioning economy. They have excellent universities. They have a reasonably free press. They allow for and have a peace movement with Palestine. And so on and so on.
If I had to make a choice, there is no question where I wanted to live.
I don't agree to this "both sides" balance argument which is coming across in #22 and #23! The conflict and the systemic positions are, as far as the above positions are concerned, very much imbalanced. Which is another problem in resolving the conflict but which is also the reason I very much side with Israel these days (it hasn't always been like that).
sixthswan
Non-Member
There is a both sides, binary choice, being made by people (incorrectly).
Yes the USA and others are pro-Israel, but remember China and Russia are not so much.
There is plenty of power balance in the binary choice. It's not just Israel vs. Gaza...
But the binary choice overlooks the complexity of the situation.
Neither side is right.
Neither side is wrong.
Yes the USA and others are pro-Israel, but remember China and Russia are not so much.
There is plenty of power balance in the binary choice. It's not just Israel vs. Gaza...
But the binary choice overlooks the complexity of the situation.
Neither side is right.
Neither side is wrong.
swabianfox
Rare Continental Breed
I'll try to phrase it differently.
I fully agree that to resolve the Israel/Palestine conflict you need to consider both sides.
The problem is that the Palestinian cause and organisations come with a lot of political positions which are totally and utterly incompatible with our Western values and way of life (as partially flawed and imperfect as they might be but they are the best we have).
Look, Hamas even disputes the Holocaust! Suicide bombers, death cult and so on. Incompatible, totally. Not sure about women's rights, let alone gays'.
It's very tricky.
I fully agree that to resolve the Israel/Palestine conflict you need to consider both sides.
The problem is that the Palestinian cause and organisations come with a lot of political positions which are totally and utterly incompatible with our Western values and way of life (as partially flawed and imperfect as they might be but they are the best we have).
Look, Hamas even disputes the Holocaust! Suicide bombers, death cult and so on. Incompatible, totally. Not sure about women's rights, let alone gays'.
It's very tricky.
Harwichfox
Roofer
So it's ok to approve ownership of a club by someone who hasn't heard of human rights?
RubberDoug
Registered
These guys, so they tell me, are the liberal, broadminded ones on here. In reality, I doubt they could out-think their own assholes.
Club_B00k_Crutchless
Registered
The history is long and complex and both sides continue to disagree, however, a way forward needs to be found, possibly some sort if 2 state solution. Also, what no-one has mentioned so far, is the Iranian input into the conflict.