Monday, 13 July 2009

Football against the Enemy

I'm sure this seemed like a good idea at the time...




ps - For what it's worth, I don't think the ad is racist, as has been suggested quite a bit. However, it does beg a rather interesting question: Why can't the Palestinians fetch their own ball themselves? Or, to look at it another way, why are the Palestinians completely invisible?

pps - The game is called Football, ok? Not Soccer. Only the Americans call the game Soccer.And we know how good they are at the game...what's that? Reached the finals of the Confederation Cup? Narrowly beaten by Brazil? Oh...(slinks off, stage left, deflated.)

ppps - This blog's title is also the title of, in my opinion, the best book written about football, ever. The author, Simon Kuper, has also written another interesting book about the uncomfortable relationship between Ajax Amsterdam and their devoted - fanatical, even - Jewish fan base. Both books are really worth reading...

6 comments:

thebookmistress said...

The **really** interesting thing about Ajax is that so few of their fans are actually Jewish. There is an interesting bit in "Kike Like Me" (http://www.tvo.org/klm/ ) where the narrator talks to the fans, and they are no less anti-Semitic than the rest of the Netherlands, despite wearing Stars of David and wrapping themselves in blue and white.

Goy said...

Thanks for the link

Adam E. said...

Hillarious! Although why should anyone think that the ad. is even remotely rascist? ...and surely the reason that the Palestinians can't fetch the ball is because it is in a foreign country? Or do you not favour a two-state solution?
There is another great football-sociology related book out there...I think it was called "How football explains the world"

Goy said...

Oh, I do favour the two state solution. I also favour freedom of movement, which the wall arbitrarily restricts (even accepting the standard, not-completely-unreasonable security argument)

But your point - that the ball is in a foreign country - is a good one, that would apply in most normal circumstances. I'm not sure what counts as normal here, though...

Adam E. said...

I would have assumed that even in our odd circumstances, it's pretty cut and dried. For all that freedom of movement is a necessity, it does have its parametres; and one would have assumed that a laissez faire crossing of borders into foreign territory is one of them. The Israelis have never declared the occupied territories as part of Israel, and as far as I know, neither have the Palestinians.

Goy said...

"The Israelis have never declared the occupied territories as part of Israel"

Well, actions do speak louder than words; the problem with the Wall is not its existence per se, but the route that it takes. If the Wall had followed the Green Line completely, I don't think anyone could have a rational problem with it - aesthetics aside, because it is an ugly thing.

But it doesn't follow the Green Line, and it is important to remember this. I would argue that what the advert does is to reduce the impact of the Wall to something similar to a benign presence; unfortunately the Wall is anything but that.