Ukraine is not Iraq or Syria.. How did the Russian war humiliate us?

It started with posts and tweets on Facebook and Twitter showing Arab youths displaying their wit by declaring their willingness to shelter blonde Ukrainian refugee women and even marry them if necessary.

The same ridiculous joke that is repeated with any similar "event", and we consider it a joke only because we know for sure that Ukrainians will not resort to Egypt, Sudan or Libya, for example, but this does not negate that we - Arab youth - are completely serious in this endeavor.

In fact, this is the dream of many Arab youth;

That a global “event”, in which they have neither elegance nor sentences, puts them on the path of realizing all their dreams, or rather an “event” that makes all their dreams forced to come true without their interference;

To have a beautiful blonde princess - according to their standards - without costs and without much trouble, a beautiful blonde princess who is grateful just because she is alive, with no demands, no ambitions, and no hope for anything but a minimal life.

We consider it an "event" because we are not sure of the correctness of describing it as a "war".

The first condition of war is that it be based on some degree of parity or convergence in the balance of power.

Russia can fight the United States, or China, or an alliance of France, England, and Germany.

We are not sure of the balance of power in the previous examples because we are not strategists, but we usually come here to talk to you about the expected goals, the ability to scan the field visually, and Simon Cooper's constant anger at the stupidity of football officials, but we believe that any example of them would make more sense than The phrase "Russian war on Ukraine" is like saying "the battle between a bear and a squirrel." The only difference between them is that the second is somewhat funny.

laugh from the heart

This was the title of the "trend" that swept our Arab world on social media at the beginning.

The Egyptian youth, for example, did not care that their country is almost the largest importer of wheat in the world, and that this puts it directly on the path to war, and frankly, we cannot blame them because we did not know that either, although it is an intuitive information that can be deduced.

Nobody cares what the government does, nor whether it imports wheat or from which country it is importing it.

The most important and most relevant to everyday reality is the possibility of Ukrainian blondes seeking refuge in Egypt, even if it is a 1% chance.

As usual, and as the communication platforms taught us in similar “events”, the counter-trend rose with the same force, and as usual, the majority succumbed to it even if it was not convinced.

There is a famous "meme" on Facebook of a young man welcoming Ukrainian refugees into his home, then - imagine - making fun of the same thing hours later.

“How does a trend crush a person?”;

This was the genius title someone chose to comment on the photo.

It is noteworthy that despite all the sharp criticism that the eroticism of blonde Ukrainian refugees was later exposed to, the matter is somewhat understandable, even if it is not justified;

All this is happening thousands of kilometers away, for reasons that do not concern them, and in a parallel world that is difficult to imagine at all, let alone sympathize with its members.

Logically, it is difficult for the crisis person to think beyond his crisis, and this may be a justification for indifference to the whole matter, but it does not justify the lowness in dealing with it, even if as a joke.

If you want to imagine how low it is, just use the famous axiom;

Put yourself in their shoes.

Excessive laughter actually kills the heart. Despite this, this was not the last joke produced by the war. Rather, we later discovered that a number of those we consider “first-degree war victims” - so to speak - are not considered so.

A strategic analyst from Georgia, a reporter from "CBS" and an interviewer from "CNN" assured us on more than one occasion that these are white, blond European citizens who should not be dealt with like Syrians, Iraqis or Afghans, and in fact, they mean Arabs, or citizens of third world countries in general. Or those who dream of a blonde Ukrainian princess.

(1)

Suddenly we switched from the jokers to the subject of the joke, and this would have been considered poetic justice if the comparison between the number of likes of racist ideas on Twitter and Facebook, and the number of lives lost in the actual racial wars because the victims were not white or blond Europeans.

Here's another surprise;

The West, which we consider as one cohesive bloc for some reason that no one knows, and which should not be called “West” in the beginning because some of it is located in the East, actually despise us, and the third surprise was that the horror of some of its blond white journalists was greater than their desire to preserve our feelings. The fourth was the most surprising of all, as we were assured that blonde Ukrainians do not read our posts and tweets and do not bother with our jokes.

Most importantly, we discovered that the opposite is not true. While translated insults invaded the Arab Facebook and Twitter pages, no one cared to convey our desires to Ukrainian women, and no one told the Russians that Putin has admirers in our Arab world for a reason only God knows, and suddenly we discovered that an innocent joke aimed at drawing Attention has turned us into constant targets for the deluge of human racism coming from the scene.

heavy banter

This is a very harsh punishment.

There is a famous English expression coined especially for such situations is "The joke is on you", which means: "The joke is on you" in the literal translation, and it describes the situation in which you try to ridicule someone, and the situation turns into ridicule of you personally.

“The joke is upon us” in record speed Although all the jokers did was point out their desire to exploit Ukrainian refugees, they did not invade any country, did not declare war, did not destroy thousands of facilities and did not even know how many countries are in NATO.

You can read the previous statement in a sarcastic tone or a serious one, and it will still be true either way.

(2)

A heavy joke that we could never, ever swallow, simply because it is so true.

This is like an American joking about hitting Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic bombs and then expecting the Japanese to laugh.

In fact, we wouldn't be surprised if a US Fox broadcaster came out to rule out nuclear war as Russia is not Japan.

What do we, football fans, have to do with all of this?

We don't know exactly.

As we told you, we usually come here to talk to you about Mohamed Elneny and Simon Cooper and the expected goals, but before we wake up from the heavy “West” banter, the International Football Association “FIFA” (FIFA) and its European counterpart “UEFA” (UEFA) were preparing to launch a joke Others included depriving Russia of participating in the upcoming World Cup, and its clubs from playing in the continental European championships, as an extension of the package of economic sanctions that were imposed on the Russians in the wake of the “war.”

(3)

At that moment, it seemed as if insults would follow us wherever we went, and even football, to which many fled in the wake of the failure of the Arab Spring, was not spared the consequences of heavy banter.

Aboutrika questioned the apparent double standards, which we do not doubt when it comes to "the West".

It is true that the one who punished Abu Trika for the famous Gaza shirt was the African Union, and it is true that it was not a real punishment but just a verbal warning, and it is true that the Leicester duo - Hamza Al-Shadhri and Wesley Fofana - who raised the flag of Palestine after the victory over Manchester City in the Charity Shield match were not punished , but the historical struggle of Celtic fans with European sanctions is well known and does not need to be documented, and the criteria are indeed double, without a doubt.

(4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

This is not evidenced by the fact that FIFA actually does not have any legal grounds to ban Russia from participating in the World Cup.

Here's another surprise;

Steve Bank, an American professor of international sports law at UCLA, believes that FIFA decided to punish Russia first and then find the legal explanation later, simply because its 92-page rules do not give it the right to suspend a team based on the actions of its country's government.

(10)

The closest that FIFA has to justify its decision is the sixteenth paragraph of the law, which states its right to punish the national association of a member state when it violates its laws.

The only problem here is that the Russian Federation did not violate any laws, and even if it did, the penalty included all the Russian national teams without exception and was not directed to the Russian Federation itself, and this makes Russia able - at least in theory - to obtain a quick and conclusive ruling from the International Sports Court. CAS "If you decide to appeal the decision, this is of course if the International Court of Sports does not reject the appeal because the Russian team is not the French or German team, for example.

seed of doubt

What is remarkable about the concept of racism is that it is not absolute on any of the parties to the conflict, regardless of its international weight and its impact on the balance of power, which can be observed even in events much less polarizing than the Russian invasion, simply because even the decisions that seem right, and everyone agrees, Often taken for the wrong reasons.

* Russia is hosting the World Cup and it is bombing Syria

* Russia is being deprived of the World Cup because it is bombing Ukraine

- America invades Iraq because it has weapons of mass

- America does not send its soldiers because Russia has weapons of mass

* FIFA refuses to integrate sports with politics with the issue of Palestine

* FIFA calls for an end to the war on Ukraine pic.twitter.com/ykvDfmXq9s

— 3FLnQe  Barcelona (@3FLnQe_VIP) March 6, 2022

The result is that FIFA's rules on political issues have become something of a custom;

Every event has its laws, and every law is determined based on the parties to the conflict and their ability to win international support and sympathy.

If you add to this the fact that FIFA is virtually incapable of defining what is political and what is not, the current scene suddenly becomes understandable, not because it tells you that FIFA is double standards - you already knew that - but because it tells you that FIFA itself is nothing more than a tool.

FIFA itself did not take any action against Russia before the last World Cup because of the invasion of Crimea, because, as you know, Ukraine is not Crimea.

(11)

FIFA also did not want to take any action against Russia in the past despite its well-known human rights record, or even criticize countries that obtained the rights to organize the World Cup, including Russia itself, and similarly, the FA did not review the human rights record of countries whose citizens own clubs in The Premier League, like Roman Abramovich and others, simply because all of these matters do not concern America, England, France or Germany, and the dominant assumption that the FIFA agenda is written by the “West” countries is completely correct despite its frequent use, and despite the randomness of the term “West” itself.

(12)

In fact, FIFA had hoped to be satisfied with banning the anthem and the Russian flag from matches and allowing the Russian teams to participate, but the objections of the teams of Sweden, Poland and the Czech Republic to playing against Russia made matters more difficult, and placed FIFA in front of a choice of two;

Either punish them or punish Russia.

So the choice was clear, especially with teams like these, described by sports writer Mike Goodman as having the worst geo-political options possible against Russia in such a situation.

(12)

Do brown people have equal rights, too?

Would we have been excited to host refugee women if Russia had invaded Uganda, Congo or Jamaica?

All of the above are self-evident, but leave a bitterness in the throat that is difficult to swallow.

The layers of racism do not end, and you will always find “those” who are not “those”, and the more you search, you discover that the practitioners of racism today may be its victims tomorrow. You can easily imagine situations in which phrases such as “America is not France” or “Germany is not Italy” or “England is not Scotland,” simply because racism is an endless series of bidding scorching the ground on which everyone stands, even civilized blond whites are not equal either.

The only consolation here may be that all those human animals, so to speak, might make us wonder;

Do brown people have equal rights, too?

Would we have been so excited to host refugee women if Russia had invaded Uganda, Congo or Jamaica?

Are we ready to put ourselves in the same place and imagine what would happen if Cameroon or Burundi were being bombed?

The Russian “war” may be an opportunity for some in the “West” to recall their racism, but any slow analysis that goes beyond the shells of the event will find more than that to talk about, especially when the communication platforms prevail in the purified tone of the victim.

It is true that we do not have the power to overrun Ukraine, or blow up entire cities with atomic bombs, or build military empires on the genetic supremacy of dark skin, but if there is ever a half-full of this hateful cup, it is an opportunity to review ourselves;

Did our anger at Western racism stem from our deep belief in humanity?

Are all victims really equal in our view?

Do we believe that every human being has the right to life as long as no one takes away life?

Or are we only angry because we were surprised that the "West" might be the same as our racism sometimes?

_______________________________________________________

Sources: