AFL knock back Gaza humanitarian aid advertising at Adelaide Oval

[JohnnyFontane90]

Booze - great!
Gambling - bring it on!
Humanitarian cause - get that filth of our screens

i know which 2 of those 3 i'd rather be doing...

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

World Vision can advertise as much as they want. There is simply no need to pin their marketing to Gaza. It is clearly done deliberately to be provocative.

Makes sense. You are appealing to the emotions of people based on the suffering of one side of a conflict. Aim it at Palestine, Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Syria, Libya and innocent victims of military conflict all over the world and you are being decidedly apolitical. The money can still go predominantly where it is needed most but you are not getting people to choose a side.

 

[Adz]

Thought this was about Ablett.

 

[ozgamer]

Alienating their audience is a cop out. People will eat no matter what shit you dish out ain't that right Vlad?

 

[JUBJUB]

Running the ad would piss a whole bunch of people off. The AFL doesn't want that.

Every Monday afternoon they piss off a whole bunch of people.How would this be any different ?

 

[dinger]

I fail to see the big deal about helping the Palestinians, they aren't giving aid to Hamas, they're trying to help out the people stuck right in the middle of this shit sandwich. Not the biggest fan of this decision.

 

[Sherrinator]

**** Israel, **** the Gaza Strip and **** Palestine

 

[Dogs_r_barking]

no disrespect but seriously, they have been killing each other for centuries so why start with this petty world vision when most of it goes into the organizations back pockets anyways?
We are best sticking to local affairs as opposed to getting involved with countries that will remain uncivilized for all eternity.

Why do you say that? The dispute goes back to 1946 when the United Nations decided to create a Jewish homeland, they took part of Palestine to do it (after considering taking part of Australia at one stage). The dispute has been that every time there is a skirmish Israel takes more Palestinian land, until all that is left is Gaza that is not occupied.

 

[Dogs_r_barking]

I dont think the jewish community would oppose aid going to the people caught in the middle. If it was guaranteed the aid would go to the right place i dont think anyone would have an issue.

World Vision is another kettle of fish..

The Jewish Council spokes person came on and said that as long as aid went to Israeli children as well......

 

[100action]

smart move, one who operates in the corporate environment does not rustle the jimmies of ashkenazi jews.

 

[ApplecrossWC]

The Jewish Council spokes person came on and said that as long as aid went to Israeli children as well......

Haha oh god.

They are a ****ing disgrace. USA gives them 3 billion in aid per year so they are just as guilty for all the dead palestenian children.

Also, piss weak decision by the AFL.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

If they were serious about humanitarian aid, they'd have it extended to all people (civilians) affected by conflicts, not just single out a specific group i.e. to all those affected by the situation in gaza (both sides) or just to provide aid for any civilians caught up in wars they want no part.

War is a bloody business and it's never one sided - I feel for the civilians caught on both sides

On a slightly unrelated note, I am glad the AFL no longer has the Army award though

 

[ApplecrossWC]

War is a bloody business and it's never one sided - I feel for the civilians caught on both sides

This is basically as one sided as you can get.

 

[hotham]

Morally right?

I'm not an expert on the Israeli / Palestine conflict. Though from what I've read, morally right to me would mean, the Palestinians getting their land back.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

This is basically as one sided as you can get.

Still two sides to it. It's not like either side don't have blood on their hands

 

[Big_Birdy]

I'm not an expert on the Israeli / Palestine conflict. Though from what I've read, morally right to me would mean, the Palestinians getting their land back.

How far do you want to go back?

Palestine is simply a derivation of what the Romans called the land, which they took from the Jews.

Taking the land the 1949 was unjust in my opinion. But so were the Arab conquests.

And so would it be to take away the land from those millions of Jews, and Arabs, who were born in Israel.

Its a bit disingenuous to say the land should go back to it's rightful owners and pick the arbituary date of 1948.

 

[I am Jack]

How far do you want to go back?

Palestine is simply a derivation of what the Romans called the land, which they took from the Jews.

Taking the land the 1949 was unjust in my opinion. But so were the Arab conquests.

And so would it be to take away the land from those millions of Jews, and Arabs, who were born in Israel.

Its a bit disingenuous to say the land should go back to it's rightful owners and pick the arbituary date of 1948.

That is about it. It is a good situation for the AFL to just steer clear of.
No doubt Andrew would've thrown his hat in the right though, probably would've tried to mediate or something - for a small fee.

 

[ThatsjustDappa]

How far do you want to go back?

Palestine is simply a derivation of what the Romans called the land, which they took from the Jews.

Taking the land the 1949 was unjust in my opinion. But so were the Arab conquests.

And so would it be to take away the land from those millions of Jews, and Arabs, who were born in Israel.

Its a bit disingenuous to say the land should go back to it's rightful owners and pick the arbituary date of 1948.

The area of Palestine was populated prior to the Jewish faith, anyhow, this isn't about 2,000 years ago or any other ancient time, it is about modern times. I don't think 1948 as a date is disingenuous at all, though the 1967 borders are generally accepted and by many people on both sides of the conflict (and to note this border is not miles off 1948).

 

[flamethrower]

Well done AFL.

The occult anti-Semitism in this country has reared its ugly head since the start of the lastest conflict.

 

[Big_Birdy]

The area of Palestine was populated prior to the Jewish faith, anyhow, this isn't about 2,000 years ago or any other ancient time, it is about modern times. I don't think 1948 as a date is disingenuous at all, though the 1967 borders are generally accepted and by many people on both sides of the conflict (and to note this border is not miles off 1948).

Didn't the Turks have it until the late 19th century? Is that Modern enough? 1890 is closer to 1948 than 1948 is to 2014.

I dont disagree with anything you wrote and am certainly not trying to pick a fight

I guess the point I was trying to make is how will the mistakes of the past be corrected by being repeated?

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Well done AFL.

The occult anti-Semitism in this country has reared its ugly head since the start of the lastest conflict.

wut

 

[hotham]

How far do you want to go back?

Palestine is simply a derivation of what the Romans called the land, which they took from the Jews.

Taking the land the 1949 was unjust in my opinion. But so were the Arab conquests.

And so would it be to take away the land from those millions of Jews, and Arabs, who were born in Israel.

Its a bit disingenuous to say the land should go back to it's rightful owners and pick the arbituary date of 1948.

I need to be cautious, as I'm probably a bit out of my depth. I don't take my opinion back, but cannot really elaborate.

 

[Tulip]

Why do you say that? The dispute goes back to 1946 when the United Nations decided to create a Jewish homeland, they took part of Palestine to do it (after considering taking part of Australia at one stage). The dispute has been that every time there is a skirmish Israel takes more Palestinian land, until all that is left is Gaza that is not occupied.

He said thousands. He was right.

The Jewish Council spokes person came on and said that as long as aid went to Israeli children as well......

Plenty of Israeli homes destroyed too, not to mention the tax payer money and international aid ploughed into their rocket defence system.

 

[Tulip]

Didn't the Turks have it until the late 19th century? Is that Modern enough? 1890 is closer to 1948 than 1948 is to 2014.

I dont disagree with anything you wrote and am certainly not trying to pick a fight

I guess the point I was trying to make is how will the mistakes of the past be corrected by being repeated?

Quite right. War isn't less bloody when caught on film. Can talk about war in a civil society all we like, but how could removing millions of people from their homes be considered civilised?

 

[GWSP]

Didn't the Turks have it until the late 19th century? Is that Modern enough? 1890 is closer to 1948 than 1948 is to 2014.

I dont disagree with anything you wrote and am certainly not trying to pick a fight

I guess the point I was trying to make is how will the mistakes of the past be corrected by being repeated?

The concept of a "Palestine" only came into place in the 1920's if my history serves me right. No nation called Palestine ever existed in history before that.