Israeli football fans cause outrage in Poland with 'murderers' banner
Poland was occupied by Nazi Germany in the second World War. The country's 3.2 million Jewish population was the largest in Europe at the start of the war. Almost all were killed, many of them in Nazi German death camps, and a further 3 million non-Jewish citizens also died during the occupation.
Advertisement
Historical disputes over the second World War and the Holocaust have strained relations between Poland and Israel in the past.
Studies have shown complicity by some Poles in the killing of Jews by Nazi Germany, but many Poles reject such findings, saying they are an attempt to dishonour a country that suffered immensely during the war.
The "Murderers since 1939" banner was displayed prominently across a row of seats by fans of Israeli club Maccabi Haifa during their Europa Conference League match against Rakow Czestochowa, which was played in Debrecen in Hungary for security reasons.
"The scandalous banner displayed by Maccabi Haifa fans insults the memory of Polish citizens - victims of World War Two, including 3 million Jews," Polish President Karol Nawrocki, a former head of the country's Institute of National Remembrance, wrote on X. "Stupidity that no words can justify."
Advertisement
Polish Interior Minister Marcin Kierwinski said "Anti-Polonism and the scandalous distortion of Polish history by Israeli hooligans demand strong condemnation".
The Israeli Embassy in Warsaw also condemned the banner.
"There is no place for such words and actions, from any side, neither at the stadium nor anywhere else. Never!" the embassy wrote on X. "These shameful incidents do not reflect the spirit of the majority of Israeli fans."
Rakow Czestochowa won the game 2-0, giving them a 2-1 victory on aggregate.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
16 minutes ago
- The Sun
Rachel Reeves tax grab for woke training & mobiles for migrants makes my teeth itch… here's what Govt SHOULD be doing
AS I'm sure you know, you are taxed on the money you earn. And you must pay more taxes every time you buy anything or go anywhere or fill your car up with fuel or buy a pint or get your hair cut or go on an aeroplane. 5 And if by some miracle you manage to die with a few savings in the bank, they even tax your kids on those. It's your money. You earned it. You paid tax on it. And then they tax it again. It makes my teeth itch. However, for many years, you have been able to pass money on to your children, tax free, providing you live for seven years after the gift is made. But now we are hearing they're even going to tax you on that. Yup. You want to help your kids get on the property ladder. Well you can't because that infernal woman, Rachel Reeves, has decided that it'd be better if you gave your money to her instead. I seriously doubt that. Let me give you an example of the problem. Near to where I live, the local council — which gets a quarter of its cash from the Government — decided to spend £51million on a new park and ride facility next to the busy A40. It was completed last year and it's very snazzy with 850 spaces, charging points for electrical cars, and attractive spaces where commuters can shelter from the rain. Lovely. Apart from one small thing: It's not connected to the road network. Seriously, there's no way anyone can access it, so it's sitting there now, a gigantic blot on the landscape and it cannot be used for parking or riding because neither a bus, nor a car can get into it. Raising taxes will kill off growth, Reeves warned as she pledges to rip up business red tape So they have taken 51million of your pounds. And wasted them. And they are doing that sort of thing, every day, across the whole country. And now Rachel Reeves is saying she needs your money more than your children do so that she can waste it on other stupid stuff like diversity training, and pronoun days and treats for illegal immigrants, all of the net zero nonsense. I don't think Reeves is an unpleasant person. But I do think that she and Starmer and Rayner and Lammy are a bit thick. Lammy especially. 5 5 He can't even go fishing without getting into trouble. That's why they can't get it into their heads that taking our hard-earned money and wasting it is seriously annoying. And it's even more annoying when they want yet more money so they can waste that too. It's really not that difficult to get your head round what needs to be done. Don't raise taxes. Just spend less. A TURN OFF TO DRIVING ONE of my oldest friends lost his driving licence recently, having been caught speeding four times in the last three years. He sounds reckless, until I tell you that the speeds involved were 25, 26, 31 and 35. And this ridiculous attitude to people breaking idiotic 20mph limits is just the tip of the anti-car iceberg. It's now virtually impossible to get a driving test, and if by some miracle you do eventually get a licence, you won't want to buy a car because it bongs at you if you drive too quickly or stray out of lane or take your eyes off the road. I drove a Toyota recently which had a bonging paddy fit and flashed up a message saying, 'Sit up straight'. What's next? 'Clean your teeth'? So cars are annoying, you can't drive them at more than walking speed and now comes news that the drink-drive limit is being lowered to a point where you can't pop to the shops in your motor if you've had so much as a sherry trifle. Plus, unless you can see the bracelet Neil Armstrong left on the moon, your eyes aren't good enough, so you'll have to use the bus instead. Naturally, we are told this is all to save the NHS from the cost of patching up the victims of car accidents. But that's rubbish. It's the drive for net zero. They are making driving so difficult, no one will want to do it. Welcome to stadium of hate, Sophie 5 I WAS astonished to hear this week that after posting pictures of herself at an Oasis gig, the Game Of Thrones actress Sophie Turner was slammed by a follower who said she must have forgotten she's a mother. Really? So people with children aren't allowed to go out ever? Honestly, I'm beginning to realise that the world was a much nicer place when strangers weren't able to talk to each other. Social media is like a gigantic football stadium . . . where the rival fans can sit where they like. There's going to be trouble. And there is. LEONARDO DICAPRIO tells us that although he's 50, he feels 32. Yeah, but watch out, mate. I was 19 my whole life. Until I got to 65, when all of a sudden, I became 109. NO PET FOOD A ZOO in Denmark has found itself in a spot of bother after asking local people to donate their pet guinea pigs and rabbits. So they can be fed to the big cats . . . We even read this week of a little girl who donated her poorly pony. Which was turned by the zoo keepers into a lion's lunch. I should explain at this point that the animals are not being eaten alive. They are 'gently' killed before being turned into food. But I can see why everyone's getting their knickers in a twist. Because like you, I can't understand why you'd look at your little hamster whizzing round in his wheel and think, 'You know what. I'd like to feed that to a leopard.' You may say this is hypocrisy as I now spend my days farming. But I have a simple rule on the matter. I never eat anything that had a name. DEAD END ON NAME THE boy wonder Kaleb Cooper, who manages my farm, received word this week that his wife was in labour. 'Right,', he said. 'I'll be there when I've finished harvesting this field.' 5 How farmerish is that?!?! Happily, he finished in time to welcome what for him is baby number three, and then our thoughts turned to a name. One of our mates suggested it should be named after the field he was harvesting when the call came through. Nice idea, except for one small detail. The field was called 'Deadman'. Despite the interruption, we did get the harvest finished. And thanks to the drought we've had this year, it was dismal. Seriously, you could fit all the grain we ended up with in a Hoover bag. And this, after the appalling wet weather of last year, which resulted in the country's second- worst harvest on record. A lot of farmers are going to be in a proper financial mess as a result. But at least we have a government which has their back. No, wait . . .
The Guardian
28 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Why I withdrew my book from an LGBTQ+ literary prize
Last week, I withdrew my nomination from the longlist for the Polari first book prize. The awards had become mired in controversy due to the nomination of the Irish author John Boyne, best known for The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas, for the main prize for his novel Earth. Four days before the longlist announcement, Boyne had written in the Irish Independent, celebrating JK Rowling 'as a fellow terf' and saying of women who had 'pilloried' her for her gender activism: 'For every Commander Waterford, there's a Serena Joy standing behind him, ready to pin a handmaiden down as her husband rapes her.' I think such a viewpoint is abhorrent, but Boyne is free to hold whatever views he wants. What was unacceptable was a statement from the Polari prize addressing the backlash, emphasising its commitment to 'support trans rights and amplify trans voices', but defending Boyne's inclusion on the grounds that submissions are assessed purely 'on the merits of craft and content' and that 'within our community, we can at times hold radically different positions on substantive issues'. I immediately withdrew upon reading it, after the resignation of judge Nicola Dinan, who won the prize last year, and withdrawal of fellow longlisted author Mae Diansangu. Since then, a further judge has withdrawn and at least 16 authors across both lists have excused themselves from consideration. It was not a difficult or painful decision – I felt misled about the principles underpinning the organisation and I no longer cared to be awarded by it. I have, in the past, been shortlisted for my work alongside writers whose views I did not agree with. But in those instances, their positions didn't undermine the stated values and politics of the prize. This isn't a matter of differing views, but of an institution properly and accurately representing itself. The prize has always been for the entire LGBTQ+ community, as evidenced by previously shortlisted, and winning, entries from trans writers. And so it is a contradiction to include someone who is trans-exclusionary (terf stands for trans-exclusionary radical feminist). The prize claims that it does 'not eliminate books based on the wider views of the writer'. But a prize claiming to be a celebration of LGBTQ+ inclusion should know that the condition of trans people isn't reducible to a debate in which people are simply holding 'different positions' – they are a minority group facing unprecedented levels of harassment and political antagonism. Not all of my fellow longlisted authors have chosen this path; some have, while affirming their commitment to trans rights, stated their intentions to remain. Avi Ben-Zeev (the only trans author nominated) stated his reasoning as, 'If I walk away, I'm erasing my trans story' and regretted that 'transphobia has shifted the conversation away from the celebration of LGBTQ+ literature', while emphasising the solidarity between longlisted writers regardless of their decision. I can understand such a position, but I think it undermines collective solidarity, rather than being an example of it. I think there is significant power in authors acting as a collective bloc. I was particularly moved by the example of the US writers who withdrew from the PEN America literary awards last year, in protest against the institution's lack of criticism of Israel's actions in Gaza. And to me, the real celebration of LGBTQ+ literature has come not from the prize, but from the community that has rallied behind the withdrawn authors. Our withdrawal has been followed by a 800-strong petition to remove Boyne from the longlist. That is not about him per se – he is obviously suffering great personal upset at this situation. It is, once again, about the stated aims of the organisation. We have, of course, been subjected to the usual name-calling: described as the 'Trans Taliban' and 'Queer Isis' by Julie Bindel; accused of being proponents of 'radicalised', 'totalitarian' politics by Canadian novelist Allan Stratton. Some have accused critics of bullying Boyne, and compromising freedom of speech and expression. But we have not called for his books to be pulped, and evidently he has, and continues to be, more than free to share whatever views he likes and write as many books as he wants. Boyne has since issued a statement outlining his views on trans rights and calling on the writers who have withdrawn their nominations to restore themselves to the longlist, writing that he has 'shelves full of awards at home' and that while he would not withdraw, he would ask the judges not to shortlist him. Perhaps some writers will take up this offer. But from where I stand, the response is not for Boyne to propose, as this action is not specifically about him – it is about Polari as an institution. Where does it go from here? This year's prizes are still going ahead and a 'shortlist' will still, somehow, be forged from the depleted pool of authors (PEN America, under similar circumstances, had the good sense to cancel its awards). Polari has also said it will be 'undertaking a full review of the prize processes', to avoid the 'hurt and anger' caused by this year's awards. I do wonder what that will look like. Poring through the public statements of all authors to ensure that nothing offending has been said? I can only hope that whatever processes are put in place will be sufficient to secure the confidence of the queer writers who have found themselves having to weather abuse and hostility for taking a public stand. Mostly, though, I think – with or without Boyne's nomination – Polari needs to figure out what it wants to be. If it wants to be a prize that is inclusive of trans-exclusionary views and writers, it is free to do this and must accept that large swaths of the community will find this intolerable and disengage. I suspect that this reluctance to commit is exactly because of that. As the response to this boycott has shown, the swell of public support is behind those who are supportive of the entire LGBTQ+ community. At one time, Polari seemed to recognise this: Bindel herself has noted that in 2021, after 'the trans train had chugged into town', she was told by its organisers that her presence at an event would cause 'a major pushback'. Polari finds itself at another crossroads, called upon to tell us what kind of organisation it is and where it really stands. Perhaps bridges will be rebuilt and the community will return, or we will go off and build something else. Jason Okundaye is an assistant newsletter editor and writer at the Guardian. He edits The Long Wave newsletter and is the author of Revolutionary Acts: Love & Brotherhood in Black Gay Britain Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Putin, Trump share greeting as critical summit on war in Ukraine starts
ANCHORAGE, Alaska, Aug 15 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump greeted Russian President Vladimir Putin with a handshake ahead of a high-stakes summit in Alaska on Friday that could determine whether a ceasefire can be reached in the deadliest war in Europe since World War Two. Trump disembarked his plane, Air Force One, and awaited Putin on the tarmac. The two exchanged greetings while smiling. U.S. F-22 aircraft were placed on either side of the red carpet. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, who was not invited to the talks, and his European allies fear Trump might sell out Ukraine by essentially freezing the conflict with Russia and recognising - if only informally - Russian control over one-fifth of Ukraine. Trump sought to assuage such concerns as he boarded Air Force One, saying he would let Ukraine decide on any possible territorial swaps. "I'm not here to negotiate for Ukraine, I'm here to get them at a table," he said. Asked what would make the meeting a success, he told reporters: "I want to see a ceasefire rapidly ... I'm not going to be happy if it's not today ... I want the killing to stop." Trump will be joined in his meeting with Putin by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Trump's special envoy to Russia, Steve Witkoff, White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said. At the subsequent larger, bilateral meeting, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and chief of staff Susie Wiles will also join Trump, Leavitt said. The Russian officials accompanying Putin in the talks with the U.S. delegation will be foreign policy aide Yury Ushakov and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told CNN. Trump hopes a truce in the 3-1/2-year-old war will bring peace to the region as well as bolster his credentials as a global peacemaker worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize. For Putin, the summit is already a big win that he can portray as evidence that years of Western attempts to isolate Russia have unravelled and that Moscow is retaking its rightful place at the top table of international diplomacy. Russian special envoy Kirill Dmitriev described the pre-summit mood as "combative" and said the two leaders would discuss not only Ukraine but the full spectrum of bilateral relations, Russia's RIA news agency reported. Trump, who once said he would end Russia's war in Ukraine within 24 hours, conceded on Thursday it had proven a tougher task than he had expected. He said if Friday's talks went well, quickly arranging a second, three-way summit with Zelenskiy would be even more important than his encounter with Putin. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said a three-way summit would be possible if the Alaska talks bore fruit, Interfax news agency reported. Peskov also said Friday's talks could last six to seven hours. Zelenskiy said the summit should open the way for a "just peace" and three-way talks that included him, but added that Russia was continuing to wage war. A Russian ballistic missile earlier struck Ukraine's Dnipropetrovsk region, killing one person and wounding another. "It's time to end the war, and the necessary steps must be taken by Russia. We are counting on America," Zelenskiy wrote on the Telegram messaging app. Trump said there is mutual respect between him and Putin. "He is a smart guy, been doing it for a long time, but so have I ... We get along, there's a good respect level on both sides," Trump said of Putin. He also welcomed Putin's decision to bring businesspeople to Alaska. "But they're not doing business until we get the war settled," he said, repeating a threat of "economically severe" consequences for Russia if the summit goes badly. The United States has had internal discussions on using Russian nuclear-powered icebreaker vessels to support the development of gas and LNG projects in Alaska as one of the possible deals to aim for, three sources familiar with the matter told Reuters. One source acquainted with Kremlin thinking said there were signs Moscow could be ready to strike a compromise on Ukraine, given that Putin understood Russia's economic vulnerability and costs of continuing the war. Reuters has previously reported that Putin might be willing to freeze the conflict along the front lines, provided there was a legally binding pledge not to enlarge NATO eastwards and to lift some Western sanctions. NATO has said Ukraine's future is in the alliance. Russia, whose war economy is showing strain, is vulnerable to further U.S. sanctions - and Trump has threatened tariffs on buyers of Russian crude, primarily China and India. "For Putin, economic problems are secondary to goals, but he understands our vulnerability and costs," the Russian source said. Putin this week held out the prospect of something else he knows Trump wants - a new nuclear arms control accord to replace the last surviving one, which is due to expire in February. The source familiar with Kremlin thinking said it looked as if the two sides had been able to find some common ground. "Apparently, some terms will be agreed upon ... because Trump cannot be refused, and we are not in a position to refuse (due to sanctions pressure)," said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the matter's sensitivity. Putin has said he is open to a full ceasefire but that issues of verification must first be sorted out. One compromise could be a truce in the air war. Zelenskiy has ruled out formally handing Moscow any territory and is also seeking a security guarantee backed by the United States. Ukrainians who spoke to Reuters in central Kyiv on Friday were not optimistic about the summit. "Nothing good will happen there, because war is war, it will not end. The territories - we're not going to give anything to anyone," said Tetiana Harkavenko, a 65-year-old cleaner. (This story has been refiled to remove an extraneous word in the headline)
