[tome]

> The Tel Aviv police did see fit to call off a Maccabi game about 2 weeks after this furore

I think you mean the match against Hapoel Tel Aviv, which happened before this furore. The Tel Aviv police naturally know and expect that there is often unrest at a derby match, let alone a derby match between teams who share a stadium. But why would there be particular reason to assume that there would be unrest at a match between fans from Tel Aviv and Birmingham who have no particular relation to each other? And even if there was, why not cancel the match or play it behind closed doors? Why punish Maccabi specifically?

[dundarious]

My recollection is the Tel Aviv derby took place after this Aston Villa ban was announced or raised publicly as a possibility (my meaning of "the furore"), but before the eventual match (another valid definition). Regardless, the sequence of these events is immaterial.

As for a "particular reason"... the Amsterdam match! The report is a poor document, but it contains some valid reasoning, despite the outrageous AI hallucination and some legal linguistics errors (mistakenly saying "communities" themselves were targeted, instead of individuals from said communities).

Subsequently, after a Maccabi game in Stuttgart, UEFA gave Maccabi a (suspended) away fans ban. Is it really still in question whether it's plausible for a police force to say there are security concerns? https://archive.is/20251218110350/https://www.nytimes.com/at...

[tome]

> As for a "particular reason"... the Amsterdam match!

A match that happened 12 months prior? Maccabi had played several away matches around Europe in that intervening period. Why should it have been a Birmingham team that saw fit to ban them?

> Subsequently, after a Maccabi game in Stuttgart, UEFA gave Maccabi a (suspended) away fans ban. Is it really still in question whether it's plausible for a police force to say there are security concerns?

It's not implausible! But bans of all away fans happens rarely.

[dundarious]

> But why would there be particular reason to assume that there would be unrest at a match between fans from Tel Aviv and Birmingham who have no particular relation to each other?

Emphasis mine, but you said both in a connected statement, so I don't see the point in disputing anything about my quotation.

Edit: I see now have you've removed the dispute of my quotation as being inaccurate where you argued you said "particular relation" and not "particular reason" -- no worries, I've made similar mistakes before, so while I'll leave my above words, they don't matter anymore.

As for why Birmingham in particular, I don't see it as some kind of gotcha to say because there is a resident population in Birmingham that would be a likely target of racial/religious abuse by Maccabi fans, i.e., Muslim people, or even just "Arab" appearing people, or people showing Palestine solidarity. Amsterdam and Birmingham are similar in this regard (I lived in Amsterdam for years), in ways other cities may not be. I'm not clued into Stuttgart or the cities hosting other games, so I can't say if populations there are similar or not. Expecting a uniform approach from all cities would be ludicrous -- why mandate ignoring particularities?

I don't think this is a form of intolerance towards Maccabi fans, because the logic is identical to that of the Tel Aviv derby prohibition -- it's about preventing reasonably predictable confrontations that exceed some tolerance level.

[tome]

> Edit: I see you removed disputing my quotation as being inaccurate, no worries, I've made similar mistakes before, so while I'll leave my above words, they don't matter anymore.

Yes, the mistake was entirely mine.

> As for why Birmingham in particular, I don't see it as some kind of gotcha to say because ...

Fine, that's a perfectly valid reason in itself, but the West Midlands police did keep quiet about that being the basis for the ban, only saying so (in far less detail than you) after the match had taken place: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqx3d5enx0xo, which in itself seems suspicious.

If your point is "hooliganism happens and is treated on a case-by-case basis, in some circumstances warranting bans" then my response would be to agree, though I still hold that such hooliganism is rare. This isn't the 1980s any more. Any further dispute is about the facts of the particular case, and what I've seen from the Commons committee which questioned the West Midlands police chief doesn't fill me with confidence that your interpretation is the correct one.

[dundarious]

The background level of hooliganism is AFAIK a lot lower now than in the 80s/90s when I casually recall it being commonplace and less under control, yes, but that doesn't mean that Maccabi deserve to be treated as if they themselves rarely act as hooligans or racists, etc.

I have read quite a lot on the topic of what transpired in Amsterdam, what generally transpires at Maccabi games in Israel (in terms of genocidal chants, calling Israeli "left wing" club supporters "the whores of Arabs", etc., because they are in my view less racist against Palestinians or "Israeli Arabs"), the level of analysis done by the Birmingham police (a poor document, but to me there is clearly a reasonable argument in there, struggling to be expressed, but mired in unforced errors), etc. I think the standard of discourse by UK parliamentary commissions and debate in parliament, etc., has been very low, and not a sufficient basis to understand the relevant facts, even for a casual overview, never mind for detailed insight.

However, none of that is part of my original point, which is only to say, that banning away fans from a club like Maccabi is not notable, and on the surface level, anyone arguing that it smacks of discrimination is either ignorant or disingenuous. If one admits that there was plausible justification to prohibit Maccabi away fans, but in the particulars it was not justified, then fine, I disagree, but I don't wish to pursue the argument on HN.