I am no friend of Israel. I think that within their state, they practice a policy that can only be termed apartheid. Within the Occupied Territories, they self-righteously mouth platitudes about the need for the Palestinians to move away from terrorism while continuing to stoke the underlying fires of the conflict throught their ongoing expropriation of Palestinian land. I fully support a unilateral declariation of independence by the Palestinians, as Israel will never make the necessary concessions for peace of their own volition, and I hope that the global community coerces them into doing so. That said, nothing justifies the abuse levelled at Yossi Benayoun in Malaysia last week, or the continued refusal of Muslim countries to compete against Israel.
Consider the fact that Israel, in spite of being entirely in Asia, plays its football in UEFA, and has done so since 1992. While Israel probably isn't that unhappy about this fact, the basic cause for this is that Israel's neighbours don't want to face the tough choice of whether to play against them. As a result, thanks to a bit of finagling, Israel plays against European teams. Prior to 1992, while Israel was a member of the AFC, it often had extreme difficulty playing against neighbouring teams and countries, particularly in the years following the Six-Day War. In 1964, both Iran and Pakistan pulled out of the AFC Asian Cup in protest at the fact that Israel were hosting it.
This is one of those "sport and politics" arguments. First, let us assume that sport and politics shouldn't mix. In which case, no problem. Israel should be treated the same as everyone else. If other teams are unwilling to play, too bad. Israel then gets a walkover. Let's see how many teams are willing to sink their World Cup chances to make an immature political point. In this reality, the only rules FIFA need enforce are its own. Granted, Israel is not alone in being geographically anomalous (Kazakhstan, the Caucasus countries and Cyprus all play in UEFA), but the others at least have a claim to being historically European and some geographic claim, whereas Israel is very definitely in Asia.
Flip it over and assume the reality that politics plays a part in sport, just as it does in anything. In this case two factors are at play. The first is that Arab countries are legitimately protesting Israeli human rights abuses, and shouldn't be punished for it by exclusion from football. Ergo, letting Israel play in Europe satisfies all parties.
The problem with this is that it favours the notion, common among the left in the West, that Israel is somehow qualitatively worse than any other regime. After all, any member of FIFA has exactly the same rights as any other, regardless of their human rights or lack thereof. Nobody ever refuses to play against any of the Islamic world, despite the appalling human rights situation in many countries. It was somewhat ironic that the racist abuse directed against Benayoun took place in Malaysia, as that country too discriminates against its minorities. Nobody thinks that because Iran bans women from driving, they shouldn't legitimise the regime by playing football against it. Hell, they even allowed North Korea to play in the World Cup. On that subject, FIFA had no problems awarding the 2018 and 2022 competitions to countries with dubious human-rights records. Clearly, FIFA doesn't care about human rights, so why should it accommodate countries that claim to do, particularly when the hypocrisy of said claims is self-evident.
Which brings us to the thorniest issue of all and the strongest argument for excluding Israel from Asian football and keeping it in Europe: the fact that virtually all of its neighbours are at war with it, and a host of other places don't recognise its existence. As a result, playing against many Asian teams is impractical.
The problem with this is that neither Israel or its neighbours do much fighting against each other anymore, and keeping them in separate confederations is merely a fudge to people's sensibilities. After all, India and Pakistan regularly play cricket against each other, despite their ongoing hostilities (ok, there's a very limited pool of cricket-playing country, but it's a quantitative, not qualitative, difference). Russia and Georgia took second and third place in the 2008 Olympic Women't Air Pistol event, while their two countries were actually engaged in a shooting war. In one of the better scenes from the Olympics, the two athletes hugged and kissed before making an impassioned plea for peace. North and South Korea have played against each other several times, including in the semi-finals of the 1980 AFC Asian Cup. If, in the unlikely event of Israel and Iran making it to the knockout stages of a World Cup, they were drawn against each other, it would be hard to imagine either side backing out. If they can play in a World Cup, they can play in a World Cup qualifiers. It's that simple.
In addition, the Arab world has, at best, dubious cause for its stance. While back in the 1970s, several countries asserted territorial claims against Israel, nowadays only Syria has any sort of issue, the Golan Heights (Lebanon also claims a tiny part of that, the Shebaa Farms, but that is a trilateral dispute involving Syria, Lebanon and Israel). The justification for their stance has slowly morphed from one of direct disputes to a Pan-Arab/Pan-Islamic ideal towards naked anti-Semitism. Witness the propagation of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion by various Middle Eastern countries, or Iran's Holocaust-denying president. The fact is that there is no real cause for the Islamic sporting boycott of Israel, and FIFA, FIBA and the other countries who connive in it should have no truck with it.
But there is another reason why Israel shouldn't be allowed to escape its neighbours and vice versa. At present the Arab-Israel conflict is in a stalemate. Israel is now in a strong enough position militarily that it has no real fear of its neighbours. Its neighbours have no real interest in fighting Israel anymore, and can comfort themselves with rhetorical slings and arrows. Caught in the middle of this are the Palestinians, oppressed by the Israelis and ignored by the Arabs.
The primary reason for this stalemate is that both sides can effectively deny the existence of the others. The Arab world does this explicitly, through the terms of the 1968 Khartoum Declaration (no peace, no negotiations, and no recognition). But Israel also does so. It has, both literally and figuratively, walled itself off from its neigbours. The Israeli public think of themselves as European rather than Middle Eastern. In a very definite way, by denying the existence of the Palestinians and Arabs, they can deny their humanity, and therefore excuse any wrongs committed against them.
It is these two problems that underpin the intractability of the conflict. The Arabs refuse to admit that Israel isn't going anywhere. The Israelis refuse to admit that the Arabs are people too. By assisting in keeping the two countries separate, sporting organisations are allowing this delusion to persist. What this means is that Islamic countries can continue to denounce Israel for all to hear, and Israel can continue to paint the picture of the Arab bogeyman to its populace and thus continue to justify whatever human-rights abuses it decides to commit.
Right, having a few sports games against each other isn't going to change that. After all, the regional crisis has dragged on for centuries, defying the best efforts of all concerned to rectify it. However, at keast it will force the various parties to stop denying the existence of each other. If the choice is between playing the enemy and missing out on the World Cup, there are a few countries that might well bite the bullet and field a team against Israel. Even if it doesn't, there's no reason UEFA (I use them as an example because football is what I'm most familiar with, but there's plenty of sports that also allow Israel to compete in Europe) should make an exception becuase people are being difficult. Taiwan competes internationally under the name of Chinese Taipei, but it still competes, despite the lack of international recognition.
Plus, even if it won't move mountains, sporting fixtures between Israeli and Arab teams will at least create some decent publicity, and perhaps some sort of normality. Ok, every event will be politically, racially and religiously charged, but so are plenty of sporting derbies. Any issues about teams' or fans' safety can be dealt with by playing matches on neutral ground, should it be necessary. That alone would encourage countries to guarantee access for teams and fans, lest valuable revenues be lost.
As outlined above, there's only two ways of looking at it. Either FIFA doesn't do politics, in which case Israel should play in Asia where it belongs (georgraphically, anyway). Or if it does, than it has a duty to try and use its influence to try and end one of the world's longest-running conflicts. It may not move mountains. But given where Arab-Israeli relations are now, even a few pebbles would be better than nothing.
Post by Greg Bowler.
Contributors do not necessarily represent Kingbet's opinion on any matter but are independent.
Consider the fact that Israel, in spite of being entirely in Asia, plays its football in UEFA, and has done so since 1992. While Israel probably isn't that unhappy about this fact, the basic cause for this is that Israel's neighbours don't want to face the tough choice of whether to play against them. As a result, thanks to a bit of finagling, Israel plays against European teams. Prior to 1992, while Israel was a member of the AFC, it often had extreme difficulty playing against neighbouring teams and countries, particularly in the years following the Six-Day War. In 1964, both Iran and Pakistan pulled out of the AFC Asian Cup in protest at the fact that Israel were hosting it.
This is one of those "sport and politics" arguments. First, let us assume that sport and politics shouldn't mix. In which case, no problem. Israel should be treated the same as everyone else. If other teams are unwilling to play, too bad. Israel then gets a walkover. Let's see how many teams are willing to sink their World Cup chances to make an immature political point. In this reality, the only rules FIFA need enforce are its own. Granted, Israel is not alone in being geographically anomalous (Kazakhstan, the Caucasus countries and Cyprus all play in UEFA), but the others at least have a claim to being historically European and some geographic claim, whereas Israel is very definitely in Asia.
Flip it over and assume the reality that politics plays a part in sport, just as it does in anything. In this case two factors are at play. The first is that Arab countries are legitimately protesting Israeli human rights abuses, and shouldn't be punished for it by exclusion from football. Ergo, letting Israel play in Europe satisfies all parties.
The problem with this is that it favours the notion, common among the left in the West, that Israel is somehow qualitatively worse than any other regime. After all, any member of FIFA has exactly the same rights as any other, regardless of their human rights or lack thereof. Nobody ever refuses to play against any of the Islamic world, despite the appalling human rights situation in many countries. It was somewhat ironic that the racist abuse directed against Benayoun took place in Malaysia, as that country too discriminates against its minorities. Nobody thinks that because Iran bans women from driving, they shouldn't legitimise the regime by playing football against it. Hell, they even allowed North Korea to play in the World Cup. On that subject, FIFA had no problems awarding the 2018 and 2022 competitions to countries with dubious human-rights records. Clearly, FIFA doesn't care about human rights, so why should it accommodate countries that claim to do, particularly when the hypocrisy of said claims is self-evident.
Which brings us to the thorniest issue of all and the strongest argument for excluding Israel from Asian football and keeping it in Europe: the fact that virtually all of its neighbours are at war with it, and a host of other places don't recognise its existence. As a result, playing against many Asian teams is impractical.
The problem with this is that neither Israel or its neighbours do much fighting against each other anymore, and keeping them in separate confederations is merely a fudge to people's sensibilities. After all, India and Pakistan regularly play cricket against each other, despite their ongoing hostilities (ok, there's a very limited pool of cricket-playing country, but it's a quantitative, not qualitative, difference). Russia and Georgia took second and third place in the 2008 Olympic Women't Air Pistol event, while their two countries were actually engaged in a shooting war. In one of the better scenes from the Olympics, the two athletes hugged and kissed before making an impassioned plea for peace. North and South Korea have played against each other several times, including in the semi-finals of the 1980 AFC Asian Cup. If, in the unlikely event of Israel and Iran making it to the knockout stages of a World Cup, they were drawn against each other, it would be hard to imagine either side backing out. If they can play in a World Cup, they can play in a World Cup qualifiers. It's that simple.
In addition, the Arab world has, at best, dubious cause for its stance. While back in the 1970s, several countries asserted territorial claims against Israel, nowadays only Syria has any sort of issue, the Golan Heights (Lebanon also claims a tiny part of that, the Shebaa Farms, but that is a trilateral dispute involving Syria, Lebanon and Israel). The justification for their stance has slowly morphed from one of direct disputes to a Pan-Arab/Pan-Islamic ideal towards naked anti-Semitism. Witness the propagation of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion by various Middle Eastern countries, or Iran's Holocaust-denying president. The fact is that there is no real cause for the Islamic sporting boycott of Israel, and FIFA, FIBA and the other countries who connive in it should have no truck with it.
But there is another reason why Israel shouldn't be allowed to escape its neighbours and vice versa. At present the Arab-Israel conflict is in a stalemate. Israel is now in a strong enough position militarily that it has no real fear of its neighbours. Its neighbours have no real interest in fighting Israel anymore, and can comfort themselves with rhetorical slings and arrows. Caught in the middle of this are the Palestinians, oppressed by the Israelis and ignored by the Arabs.
The primary reason for this stalemate is that both sides can effectively deny the existence of the others. The Arab world does this explicitly, through the terms of the 1968 Khartoum Declaration (no peace, no negotiations, and no recognition). But Israel also does so. It has, both literally and figuratively, walled itself off from its neigbours. The Israeli public think of themselves as European rather than Middle Eastern. In a very definite way, by denying the existence of the Palestinians and Arabs, they can deny their humanity, and therefore excuse any wrongs committed against them.
It is these two problems that underpin the intractability of the conflict. The Arabs refuse to admit that Israel isn't going anywhere. The Israelis refuse to admit that the Arabs are people too. By assisting in keeping the two countries separate, sporting organisations are allowing this delusion to persist. What this means is that Islamic countries can continue to denounce Israel for all to hear, and Israel can continue to paint the picture of the Arab bogeyman to its populace and thus continue to justify whatever human-rights abuses it decides to commit.
Right, having a few sports games against each other isn't going to change that. After all, the regional crisis has dragged on for centuries, defying the best efforts of all concerned to rectify it. However, at keast it will force the various parties to stop denying the existence of each other. If the choice is between playing the enemy and missing out on the World Cup, there are a few countries that might well bite the bullet and field a team against Israel. Even if it doesn't, there's no reason UEFA (I use them as an example because football is what I'm most familiar with, but there's plenty of sports that also allow Israel to compete in Europe) should make an exception becuase people are being difficult. Taiwan competes internationally under the name of Chinese Taipei, but it still competes, despite the lack of international recognition.
Plus, even if it won't move mountains, sporting fixtures between Israeli and Arab teams will at least create some decent publicity, and perhaps some sort of normality. Ok, every event will be politically, racially and religiously charged, but so are plenty of sporting derbies. Any issues about teams' or fans' safety can be dealt with by playing matches on neutral ground, should it be necessary. That alone would encourage countries to guarantee access for teams and fans, lest valuable revenues be lost.
As outlined above, there's only two ways of looking at it. Either FIFA doesn't do politics, in which case Israel should play in Asia where it belongs (georgraphically, anyway). Or if it does, than it has a duty to try and use its influence to try and end one of the world's longest-running conflicts. It may not move mountains. But given where Arab-Israeli relations are now, even a few pebbles would be better than nothing.
Post by Greg Bowler.
Contributors do not necessarily represent Kingbet's opinion on any matter but are independent.
It's an interesting one but seeing as you brought up FIBA...
ReplyDeleteThe presence of Maccabi Tel-Aviv in Basketball's Euroleague and any impact upon that would get messy quickly. ULEB, essentially Basketball's equivalent of the G14, rather likes having Maccabi as a member and wouldn't be too keen on ceding Israel to Asian Basketball.
It's easy to see why Israeli clubs wouldn't want to move for economic reasons, as Europe is always going to be more financially appealing, but I thought you'd be interested in knowing the lay of the land on the other side.
Very thought provoking article. From a purely football perspective would Israel not rather play in Asia a la Australia as it would increase their chances of playing in a WC? Or does politics superceed football in this situation? Also would beating their Arab neighbors not be a boost to Israeli pride?
ReplyDeleteSeamus