In this article, I want to deal with two types of response to the Aston Villa decision to ban away fans for their game against Maccabi Tel Aviv. I’m dealing specifically with those responses here. I believe that the original decision was wrong, gives space to and rewards antisemitism but I’m happy to believe that the club and the police have acted in good faith. However, what has been fascinating to see has been the responses from those seeking to justify the ban or even suggest that it should go further.
First of all, I’ve seen a number of suggestions that the ban on away fans is not unprecedented even with regards to Aston Villa because Legia Warsaw fans were banned from a UEFA Europa Conference League Game back in 2023. You can read the club’s statement on that game here. The club state:
“Aston Villa Football Club can confirm that no away fans were allowed into Villa Park for this evening’s UEFA Europa Conference League fixture with Legia Warsaw on the advice of West Midlands Police following large-scale disorder outside the stadium caused by visiting supporters.”
Warsaw’s fans had engaged in violence at a previous game resulting in their fans being banned from travelling to another fixture by UEFA and their ticket allocation being reduced for the Villa game. It is therefore clear that the situations were different with different actions being taken. In the Warsaw case, the sanction on away fans was taken by UEFA at a prior game and it was violence outside the ground on the day which led to the decision not to admit fans. It is important that people check the facts and report accurately before grabbing an example in order to justify a decision.
The other response I want to deal with is that exemplified by Zara Sultana, co-leader of the new “Your Party”. Sultana argued in parliament that the fans of Maccabi Tel Aviv should not only be banned but should be investigated for war crimes should they arrive in the UK because many have served in the IDF. It’s worth remembering that many Israelis serve through national service and then on the reserve list, to argue that this somehow makes them automatically complicit in any wrong decisions by the Israeli government is nonsense. The Government minister responded by noting that many fans would in fact be British citizens and observed that conflation of Jews with the actions of the Israeli State comes under the known definition of antisemitism.
Now, I’m not quite sure that the response was accurate in that Sultana’s question focused on fans arriving from Israel, so Nandy was wrong to conflate British Jews and Israelis in her answer although right to note the impact on them. However, Sultana’s response on social media since is concerning in its own right.
Sultana has not only doubled down on her position but gone further in seeking to defend her position as “anti-zionist” and arguing that Nandy is conflating anti-zionism with antisemitism. Here then is the point. I guess it would be possible to be theoretically anti-Zionist, to believe that those arguing for a Jewish homeland in the 19th Century were wrong or that the decision in 1948 was wrong. Indeed, there would have been Jews then and still today who would be anti-Zionist in that sense. However, it is worth remembering that Zionism is simply the belief that there should be a Jewish homeland. As that homeland now exists, those who disagreed with the idea have lost the argument. So, the question for Sultana is whether or not she agrees that the State of Israel has the right to exist and if not why? To deny the right of Jews to their homeland is deeply concerning.
Further, whilst it is possible to talk about opposing the current Israeli regime and its actions or those of previous Israeli regimes, It should be possible to do so without using the language of Zionism which as well as conflating the current regime with all who in principle support a Jewish homeland (both Jews and non-Jews) also plays into the stereotypes and conspiracy theories about the power and influence supposedly exercised malignly by Jews around the world, through finance, influence on other governments and the existence of the Israeli state.
That kind of conflation of Jews, supporters of a Jewish homeland, the Israeli State and conspiracy theories is exactly the kind of danger that the IHRA was concerned to warn against. Whilst those involved in such conflation may not antisemitism, it is important to recognise that it is right to identify those kinds of words and their implications as being antisemitic in nature. I take it from the way that Lisa Nandy responded to Sultana that she did not see Sultana herself as having antisemitic intent and it is wise to follow her in that assumption.
However, Sultana has those who throw around the word “Zionist” as an insult to reflect long and hard on the language they use and the impact it has. If Sultana wishes to make arguments against Israel, that is her democratic right. I would encourage her however to use language that focuses on Israel itself.
In both cases, there has been a laziness in both checking facts and following the logic through.
Faithroots 