Soccer Israeli soccer fans cause outrage in Poland with 'murderers' banner
Poland was occupied by Nazi Germany in World War Two. 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.
Historical disputes over World War Two 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."
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 Independent
4 minutes ago
- The Independent
Tractor tax more likely to hit working farmers than wealthy landowners, think tank tells Reeves
Rachel Reeves should water down her inheritance tax raid on family farms to protect workers, according to a think tank that championed the controversial Labour policy. The Centre for the Analysis of Taxation (CenTax), which has been broadly supportive of the idea of a so called 'tractor tax', warned that landowners were 'less likely to be impacted by the reform than working farmers '. The move will increase pressure on the chancellor over her plans, which critics say could sound the death knell for many family farms. The changes mean that farms valued at £1m or more will be liable for 20 per cent inheritance tax. The Treasury says that, with tax allowances, in reality only farms worth £3m would be affected – around 28 per cent of family farms. But official Defra figures appear to suggest as many as 66 per cent could be hit. Ministers have defended the changes, saying that they had to take 'difficult decisions' in the wake of what Labour says was a £22bn black hole in the public finances left by the last Tory government. However, CenTax has now said that working farmers are more likely to suffer under the policy, despite Labour's claim to protect working people. It suggested two ways the policy could be better targeted, including capping inheritance tax relief to the first £10m of a claim to allow 100 per cent relief to £2m per estate. It also suggested a 'minimum share rule', to remove inheritance tax relief for passive investors in farmland, so they cannot be used as a 'tax shelter'. Last year, minister Daniel Zeichner told MPs the government had introduced the plans to protect small fares. He said: 'Currently, small farms can find themselves facing the same levels of tax bills as much larger farms, despite having a much smaller asset. Twenty per cent of agricultural property relief is claimed by the top 2 per cent; 40 per cent is claimed by the top 7 per cent. 'That is not fair, it is not sustainable, and sadly, it has been used in some cases by wealthy landowners to avoid inheritance tax. That is why the Government has announced plans to reform agricultural property relief.' CenTax found just 20 per cent of landowner estates would be hit by the tax, compared to 25 per cent of tenant farmer estates, 45 per cent of owner-farmer estates, and 67 per cent mixed tenure estates. CenTax said: 'Landowners are less likely to be impacted by the reform than working farmers, representing 64 per cent of all farm estates but 42 per cent of impacted farm estates. Owner-farmers represent 17 per cent of all farm estates but 37 per cent of impacted farm estates.' Mo Metcalf-Fisher, from the Countryside Alliance, said: 'Labour ministers repeatedly say they want to protect genuine family farming businesses, while tackling tax avoidance, through inheritance tax changes. 'The evidence, however, points to it being these very families and their farms that will be badly impacted by the policy, as it stands. 'There is still time to listen to experts from the farming sector and rethink the policy before it's too late.' Ms Reeves is currently under pressure to find a £50bn hole in the government's finances, according to the National Institute of Economic and Social Research.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Charity boss offers ‘olive branch' to Jenrick in migration comments row
A refugee charity boss who suggested the shadow justice secretary is xenophobic has said he wants the pair to work together to de-escalate fear and anger over migration 'rather than ramping up anti-immigrant sentiment'. Krish Kandiah, a director of Sanctuary Foundation which has previously helped refugees from Ukraine and Afghanistan, said he was offering an 'olive branch' to Robert Jenrick. During a BBC broadcast earlier this week, Mr Kandiah claimed Mr Jenrick had echoed 'fear of the stranger', adding: 'The technical name for this is xenophobia.' The BBC apologised to Mr Jenrick and has since removed references to xenophobia from the programme. The Conservative politician had accused the broadcaster of thinking it was 'acceptable to smear millions of worried citizens as 'xenophobic' for their completely understandable fears about undocumented men entering illegally'. Mr Kandiah's comments, made in the Thought for the Day section of the BBC Radio Four Today programme, followed a piece Mr Jenrick had published in the Mail on Sunday. The Tory MP wrote: 'I certainly don't want my children to share a neighbourhood with men from backward countries who broke into Britain illegally, and about whom we know next to nothing.' Mr Kandiah previously appeared to double down on his comments, posting the original audio from his broadcast online and urging people to 'take a listen and let me know what I am wrong about factually?' On Thursday, he took to social media with a direct plea to Mr Jenrick. Writing on X, formerly Twitter, he posted: 'Olive branch offered … Mr Jenrick, I want your daughters and mine to be able to walk down the road safely and without fear. I worked with you when you were housing minister and the UK welcomed over 200,000 people from Hong Kong. 'I was grateful for your support and compassion during that time. I would love to find a way we could work together to de-escalate the fear and anger many are feeling in our country. 'I believe we need to focus on the real challenges that are making people worried – housing, jobs and the cost of living – rather than ramping up anti-immigrant sentiment.' Mr Jenrick's team has been contacted for comment.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
UN plastic pollution talks fail again with negotiators rejecting draft treaties
Negotiators have failed to agree on the world's first treaty to combat plastic pollution in what was meant to be the final round of UN talks. Delegates were seeking to complete a legally binding international agreement during a 10-day conference in Geneva, Switzerland. But the talks ended in overtime on Friday morning without a deal after countries rejected these drafts as the basis for negotiations. Negotiators struggled to break a deadlock over key issues, particularly whether the treaty should curb the exponential growth of plastics production. Over the past few days, Luis Vayas Valdivieso, the chair of the negotiating committee, gathered views from the representatives of 184 countries before writing two drafts of treaty text. But countries ultimately rejected the texts as the basis for negotiations as they failed to bridge major rifts between different groups of countries. The so-called 'high ambition coalition', including the UK, have been calling for binding obligations on reducing production and consumption, sustainable product design, environmentally sound management of plastic waste and clean-up of pollution. But a smaller number of oil-rich nations including Saudi Arabia and Kuwait said the drafts lacked balance as they have argued that plastic production is outside the scope of the treaty. Environment campaigners and a coalition of businesses praised the high ambition countries for holding the line for a strong deal and said no treaty was better than a weak one but warned of the urgency to tackle the growing crisis. Once in the environment, plastic waste can entangle, choke or be eaten by wildlife and livestock, clog up waterways and litter beaches, while bigger items break down into microplastics entering food chains. And producing plastic, primarily from fossil fuel oil, has a climate impact, with the World in Data and OECD saying 3.3% of global emissions is down to the production and management of global plastics. Since talks began in 2022, countries have taken part in several rounds of negotiations to reach consensus on tackling the issue. The Geneva talks were arranged after what was originally meant to be the final round of talks in Busan, South Korea, also ended without an agreement in November. It is understood that another round of negotiations will be organised when the location and money for it is found. The Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty, which represents 200 companies including Nestle, PepsiCo Walmart, Tetra Pak and Unilever, said it was 'disappointed' by the lack of an agreement, but said there is 'cause for optimism'. Rebecca Marmot, chief sustainability and corporate affairs officer at Unilever, said: 'The strong alignment among governments, business and civil society groups calling for a treaty with harmonised regulations across the full lifecycle of plastics is encouraging. 'Harmonised regulations are essential to reduce business complexity and cost, whilst also increasing confidence to invest in solutions.' Jodie Roussell, global public affairs lead for packaging and sustainability at Nestle, said: 'Voluntary efforts are not enough, and the current fragmented regulatory landscape results in increased costs and complexity for business.' Graham Forbes, Greenpeace's head of delegation at the talks, said: 'The inability to reach an agreement in Geneva must be a wake-up call for the world: ending plastic pollution means confronting fossil fuel interests head-on. 'The vast majority of governments want a strong agreement, yet a handful of bad actors were allowed to use process to drive such ambition into the ground. 'We cannot continue to do the same thing and expect a different result. The time for hesitation is over.' Christina Dixon, Ocean Campaign at the Environmental Investigation Agency, said: 'The supposedly final round of negotiations for a new global plastics treaty exposed deep geopolitical divides and a troubling resistance to confronting the real drivers of plastic pollution. 'No deal is better than a toothless treaty that locks us into further inaction, but without urgent course correction, efforts to secure a plastics treaty risks becoming a shield for polluters, not a solution to the plastics crisis.' Sian Sutherland, co-founder of A Plastic Planet at the Plastic Health Council: 'The high ambition coalition and civil society built extraordinary solidarity over these negotiations — a unity that transcended traditional boundaries. 'The fact that this could not overcome a process so fundamentally compromised by the narrow interests of the tiny fraction reaping massive financial rewards reveals the urgent need to reform how we make planetary decisions.'
