Palestine Solidarity in Football

 This article was first published in edited form on rebelnews.ie on the 29th October 2023

On Wednesday 25^th October we saw another awesome display of solidarity with the people of Palestine by Glasgow Celtic football fans with thousands of fans waving and displaying Palestinian flags during their Champions League match against Atletico Madrid. This ongoing solidarity with Palestinians facing genocidal attack by Israeli forces comes despite appeals from the club for fans to desist as the club faces fines by the European football governing body UEFA. These fines show the hypocrisy of UEFA who ban Palestinian flags as a political symbol saying that football and politics should not mix. This contrasts with the widespread gestures of support for Ukraine and shows that politics and football are allowed to mix only under certain conditions. It is also part of a wider trend around Europe to demonise and criminalise Palestinian solidarity even in the face of widespread support by people for the Palestinian cause.

The flag display was organised by the Green Brigade fans group who distributed flags to supporters as they entered the stadium. This follows on from Palestinian flags being displayed at Celtic’s recent Scottish league games. After a similar display in 2016 during a match against Israeli team Hapoel Be’er Sheva, the club were fined £9,000 by UEFA. The Green Brigade responded at the time with an online fundraiser that raised £130,000 for medical aid for Palestine and to create a football academy in Bethlehem.

While the Green Brigade helped organise these shows of solidarity, it is clear from the numbers at Celtic Park on Wednesday, that the support for Palestine among Celtic fans is much bigger than just the one fan group. The club however have responded to recent events by banning the Green Brigade from away matches in a bid to stop such scenes from recurring. While there has been no news yet on a potential fine this time, this is just one of a series of incidents of note around Europe regarding Palestinian solidarity in football.

Notably two footballers have been punished by their clubs and football authorities for showing solidarity with Palestine. Dutch footballer, Anwar El Ghazi, who is of Moroccan descent, was dropped by his German club Mainz, less than a month after joining, after he shared a post on Instagram expressing solidarity with Palestine. The club objected to the Instagram post which included the line ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’, a common slogan and chant of the Palestinian cause but which Israels supporters claim is anti-semitic. El Ghazi later stated online that ‘Every individual, be it in Palestine or elsewhere, has the right to security, a loving home and opportunities to grow’. This utterly uncontroversial statement wasn’t enough for Mainz though who proceeded to sack El Ghazi on the 27^th October. This appalling action by Mainz must be challenged by fans, players and player unions, at the very least it’s a case of illegal dismissal.

Another footballer, the Algerian, Youcef Atal of French club Nice was accused of defending terrorism for posting a video about Palestine on social media on 14^th October. Despite immediately removing the post and later posting that he denounces all forms of violence, the Nice public prosecutor opened an investigation and he was suspended by his club. On 25^th October the player received a seven-match ban by the French football authorities.

Both of these cases highlight a shocking overreach by authorities in punishing those who express solidarity with Palestinians.

Previously we have also seen Arsenals Egyptian footballer Mohamed Elneny forced to withdraw social media posts supporting Palestine in 2021 after a sponsor, the Italian coffee company Lavazza demanded action. Arsenal also censored and dropped German footballer Mesut Ozil for expressing solidarity with Uighurs who are being oppressed by China. The club were quick to act to avoid criticism from China.

These incidents are in stark contrast to what happens to those who express solidarity with Israel or Ukraine. Arsenal footballer Olexander Zinchenko and Tottenham footballer Manor Solomon both received criticism from fans for expressing solidarity with Israel during the current bombing campaign on Gaza. But the clubs and authorities were silent and there was no widespread media attention or condemnation.

Despite protestations from footballing authorities that football and politics shouldn’t mix, many leagues and clubs chose to show solidarity with Israel with minutes of silence, wearing of black armbands and displaying of Israeli flags to remember those killed by Hamas, but no mention of the thousands more Palestinians killed by Israel.

This almost descended into farce in the run-up to an international game between England and Italy on the 17^th October at Wembley Stadium in London. Numerous Tory politicians demanded that the football association (FA) light up the Wembley Stadium arch in the colours of the Israeli flag for the match as they had previously done for Ukraine last year. The FA resisted pressure from the government and decided to instead hold a minute silence at the start of the match which was then booed by fans as it only mentioned Israel and Sweden and made no mention of Palestine.

This followed over a year of solidarity being shown with Ukraine following the Russian invasion with the full support of footballing authorities. The European and global football authorities even went further by taking the unprecedented step to ban Russia and its clubs from all international competitions. In the history of football this has only happened once before, to Yugoslavia following the outbreak of war in 1992. To put this into context, even Nazi Germany was not banned, indeed they were allowed to host the Olympics. The decision to ban Russia though begs the question, why only them? Why not Israel for its ongoing oppression and murder of Palestinians, why not Saudi Arabia for the war in Yemen, why not the USA for Afghanistan and Iraq?

Footballing authorities cannot continue to say politics and football don’t mix and then pick and choose which politics can mix with football. Ultimately the power to change football and support real solidarity with oppressed peoples lies with the sports two largest stakeholders – fans and players. Footballers can have a voice, if enough of them speak out. Players like the Egyptian Mohamed Salah who has expressed solidarity with Palestinians have a role to play but there needs to be more. And player unions must be stronger in protecting players who do speak out. Fans meanwhile can take inspiration from Celtic’s Green Brigade and show real solidarity with Palestinian people by resisting any attempts to suppress such solidarity.

Film Review: Killers of the Flower Moon

This review was first published in edited form on rebelnews.ie on the 13th November 2023

The stunning new film from veteran director Martin Scorsese tells some of the story of the horrific murders within the Osage Nation in Oklahoma between 1918-31. These little-known events are often left out of the story of Native American history but show the intersections of colonialism and racism that have characterised the experience of Native Americans since the arrival of Europeans.

The Osage people were originally from the Ohio area but had been forced west to Kansas by the arrival of the Europeans and subsequent wars. Like many other tribes, the Osage were then displaced by the US government to Oklahoma, then known as Indian Territory, in the 19^th century. Indian Territory was seen as empty and barren, with little arable land, it was considered worthless with little settlement at the time by those of European descent. The Osage were able to purchase an area of land, that became what is now Osage County, the largest county in modern Oklahoma.

In the early 20^th century oil was discovered in Osage County and with the Osage people retaining ownership of the land many of them became hugely wealthy. Early on the film includes a montage of scenes showing Osage people enjoying their new found wealth with luxurious homes, fancy clothing and new modern inventions such as cars and airplanes in an important counter narrative to the usual Hollywood depiction of Native Americans as primitive or noble savages. This is despite federal law that meant that their money was governed by white administrators. But this wealth also attracted a dark side as people moved in to try and grab some of that wealth for themselves. While many found work providing goods and services to the Osage, others resorted to manipulation, corruption and murder resulting in a series of murders and unexplained deaths of Osage people. While the film focuses on the murders of members of the Kyle family, it is thought that the number of murders during this period could have been well over a hundred.

The Kyle family become particularly wealthy thanks to the oil, and their wealth draws the attention of the rich and powerful William Hale, a local white rancher, played in the film by Robert DeNiro. Hale is hugely popular and influential in the area due to his philanthropy and friendly relations with the Osage people. When his nephew Ernest Burkhart, played by Leonardo DiCaprio returns from Europe where he served in the American army during World War I, Hale has plans for Ernest to work his way into the lives of the Kyle family. Starting out as a taxi driver, Ernest quickly meets Mollie Kyle, played by Native American actress Lily Gladstone, who becomes his main passenger. Under orders from his uncle, Ernest tries to engage Mollie in conversation, eventually breaking through her quiet, dignified exterior. The film details their growing relationship which eventually leads to marriage. Even as their relationship is developing though, Mollie is forced to deal with a number of deaths of close family members.

The most shocking scenes of the film show the gruesome aftermaths of the murders of Mollies sisters Anna and Rita. With her parents and siblings all dead, Mollie is now the sole owner of her family’s land rights, which upon her death would thus transfer to Ernest.

With no investigation from the local sheriffs who are seemingly in cahoots with the murderers, Mollie and Osage leaders attempt to gain help from federal agencies in Washington. Despite the mounting evidence of murders, they are initially ignored as federal government has little interest in what happens to Native Americans in rural Oklahoma. Finally agents from the Bureau of Investigation (BOI, forerunner of the FBI) are sent to Osage County to investigate. Much of the second half of the film details the BOI investigation which is slowed by intransigence and obstructions by Hale, Burkhart and their accomplices.

With Ernest and William eventually arrested the film eventually turns to their trial which takes some twists and turns, including a strong cameo from Brendan Fraser as Hale’s lawyer.

The film then ends with Scorsese making an appearance on screen to make clear his view on the case. It is a touch very reminiscent of Spike Lee in his more righteous films.

The film while presenting a really shocking story is very well made as you would expect from Martin Scorsese. Robert DeNiro is remarkably restrained as William Hale, giving his best performance in decades. Leonardo DiCaprio, employing a permanent scowl goes a bit over the top at times especially towards the end. Lily Gladstone gives a revelatory performance as Mollie, quiet and dignified but full of righteous anger and despair as she realises her family is being killed off. The film also features a large cast of Osage people in various roles and the film was filmed in Osage County in Oklahoma.

The film is to be commended for showing a little-known disgraceful part of American history but it is very subtle in showing these murders as a part of a wider American story. Early in the film there is a brief reference to the Tulsa massacre, a contemporary event that saw the destruction of a wealthy black neighbourhood in Tulsa, Oklahoma by white racists. Little connection is made to the wider history of Native Americans, instead giving a microcosm and almost encouraging its audience to go out and find out more.

The film works very hard to elicit audience sympathy for Ernest Burkhart, only to pull the rug on that sympathy late in the film as the true extent of his involvement in the murders is slowly revealed. There has been some criticism that the film centres Burkhart and Hale as its main characters and not the Osage people. Indeed, during production the script underwent changes, following consultations with the Osage community, in order to strengthen the part of the Osage in the film. Scorsese though, who has always revelled in making films centred on villains, is probably not the right director to make a film centred on the Osage people despite his obvious sympathy for them.

The other main criticism has focused on the film’s length, at three and a half hours long, it is one of the longest cinematic releases in recent years. English film critic Mark Kermode argues that the film feels as if it was designed for online streaming where its length wouldn’t be an issue. Having been partly funded and produced by Apple, that is certainly a possibility. However, the film is so detailed that it didn’t feel too long with in particular, the numerous scenes of Osage life and culture providing important context.

Overall, Killers of the Flower Moon is a powerful depiction of a terrible event in American history that points obliquely towards the broader history of colonialism, racism and capitalist greed in the Americas.

Film Review of Civil War

Civil War is a terrifying vision of America, that is big on spectacle but ultimately struggles for meaning.

The film is set in an undefined near future, during a civil war with three regional factions fighting against the federal government of the USA. Texas and California have joined together as the Western Forces, under a flag featuring two stars instead of the usual 50, the Florida Alliance consists of much of the southeast while the north west forms the New Peoples Army. The rest of the states, known as the loyalist states, remain under the nominal control of the federal government and the president in Washington DC.

The prelude to the film shows the president preparing to give a speech on the progress of the war. As he prepares his lines full of bravado to declare the government is winning the war, the viewer is reminded of Donald Trump in his manner, even if in this scene he is a (presumably unintentionally) doppelganger for Keir Starmer!

The film centres on a small group of journalists and photographers led by a jaded veteran war photojournalist Lee Smith, played by Kirsten Dunst. At a protest which turns violent, in New York, she meets a young aspiring photojournalist who idolises her. The two join with a Reuters journalist and a ageing New York Times journalist to drive the dangerous route to Washington DC. They are determined to get a massive scoop by meeting and interviewing the president before Washington falls, although they doubt if he is even still alive.

While New York had seemed vaguely normal, as they travel southwards we soon see the destruction the war has caused. They cannot travel directly to Washington DC but must take a circuitous route to Charlottesville on the other side of the city, where the Western forces are amassing ahead of a major assault on the capital. Highways are blocked by burnt out cars, whole towns are bombed out and abandoned, people are living in refugee camps, helped by international aid groups. 

The group have a number of encounters with opposition militia and government forces, often in the midst of fighting, although not always clear who is who in the fight. The group witness war crimes being committed by both sides as opposition forces shoot captured government soldiers, while a particularly horrific scene shows government militia men throwing civilians they have killed into a mass grave. Jesse Plemons has a memorable uncredited cameo as a racist militia man demanding to know where the journalists are from.

A jarring incident occurs when the group encounter a small town where everything seems to be functioning normally and a bemused shop assistant tells them the townspeople are ignoring what is happening in the rest of the country. While in another incident they encounter two soldiers and a sniper shooting at each other even though they don't know which side they are on.

The film shows the brutality of war and in close and often horrifying detail but the film struggles to give real depth or meaning to it. The viewer is given no real reasoning for how or why the war started. While, as I said earlier, the president has some echoes of Trump, it is not enough to say that a Trump presidency will inevitably lead to civil war. As we know, it didn't. And while that can be a liberal interpretation of the film, it is equally possible to say that the president is vague enough that he could be any American president. At a time when, under a Biden presidency, police brutality is being utilised against peaceful protesters across the USA, it is not enough to say that a Trump presidency would, unlike other presidents, lead to fascism.

The film also conveniently ignores that journalists are often deliberately targeted in conflict, as we have seen notably recently in Palestine and Gaza where countless journalists have been murdered by Israel. Having the journalists targeted would have made for a very different film, but the sometimes cosy relationship between journalists and army as depicted in the film feels unrealistic.

Ultimately, the film works as a spectacle, with some gripping action and tense scenes of danger. It is a terrifying vision of what is possible, but don't look for any insight into how or why it could be possible.