People on both sides of the fence with this have tried to justify their views by claiming they are defending "free speech" or on the flip side, advocating for neutrality. I think that’s BS really, and the situation is actually quite simple: it stands to reason that if you agree with Lineker's comments and political stance, you would be outraged by the decision to suspend him; if you disagree with him, you would support the BBC's decision.
Personally, I found Lineker's comments strange but not unsurprising. In today’s world I believe we too often compare things to the high school history-book narrative of WW2, Hitler, the Nazis, and Communism etc. This is kind of weird to me, insensitive, and an inappropriate lens through which to view and explain the world. This is no comment on the merits (or otherwise) of current government policy btw, obviously this forum is not the place for that discussion.
While I personally do not particularly like Lineker and would not be unhappy if he were replaced, I did not expect any action to be taken against him, especially given the political nature of the coverage during the Qatar World Cup which itself came and went with no action taken. And despite everything, for me Lineker has been a constant and it will feel strange to watch the show without him on it.
As for the other panelists boycotting. I do not find the analysis on MOTD very insightful, and it often feels rushed to me anyway. The quality of the show and input from the panelists could be improved with fresh blood, but perhaps at this juncture it would be a good idea to look at taking the show in a slightly different direction. The football media landscape has changed hugely and the likes of BT and Sky and beIN etc. will always have better in-depth analysis now. On Saturday nights, I mostly just tune in to see the highlights of the games. A re-jig of the format to focus more on the action and less on analysis might be no bad thing.