[Cyberyeti]

 hrothgar, on 2013-August-17, 17:33, said:

Comment 1: I don't think its unreasonable for the Israeli's to insist on special treatment if they're going to compete in an international sporting event. At the same time, I don't see any require for host countries to cater to these demands. At the end of the day, if the Israeli's are unwilling to participate, so be it. I would have rather seen all the qualifying teams participate, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. Moreover, I find the constant whining pretty tedious...

Comment 2: Israel and Indonesia don't have diplomatic relations. I'm not overly surprised that the Israeli's haven't found the Indonesians to be forthcoming. Moreover, the Israeli's refusal to allow the Indonesian foreign minister to enter Israel last year might have something to do with the current difficulties.

Was unaware of the stuff in comment 2, but yes that might well have something to do with it.

It would at least be honest to say in public "we're not going to answer your security questions" but to simply not answer to me is unacceptable.

[the hog]

 Cyberyeti, on 2013-August-17, 17:19, said:

Get in touch with reality, refusal of the Indonesians to answer a legitimate question even with a "mind your own business", just to delay to ensure the Israelis couldn't go was ridiculous.

I also totally disagree with the legitimacy of the question. I suggest that it is you who "get real" You appear to have little understanding of how security works. The second part of your comment is based on ignorance rather than on facts.

[kenberg]

Myself, I would never regard any question that I have about my own security as illegitimate. Others are of course free to think and express themselves as they plaease. I will certainly ignore any claims that my concerns about my life are illegitimate, and no doubt the Israeli team feels the same regarding their own safety. My sympathy to them.

I am truly sorry it has come to this, but it's the way the world turns.

[hrothgar]

 kenberg, on 2013-August-17, 20:31, said:

I will certainly ignore any claims that my concerns about my life are illegitimate, and no doubt the Israeli team feels the same regarding their own safety. My sympathy to them.

The Israeli team is not participating because the Israeli government refuses to grant them permission to attend.

It's certainly possible that members of the Israeli team would not chose to attend, however, I haven't seen any statements to this effect by members of the Israeli team.
As I commented before, there are (at least) three Israeli's who will be competing in the event...
Migry is playing on the US team and the defending transnational team champions are also Israeli.

All of these individuals are choosing to play...

[mgoetze]

 kenberg, on 2013-August-17, 20:31, said:

Myself, I would never regard any question that I have about my own security as illegitimate. Others are of course free to think and express themselves as they plaease. I will certainly ignore any claims that my concerns about my life are illegitimate, and no doubt the Israeli team feels the same regarding their own safety. My sympathy to them.

I go to bridge tournaments all the time without asking for a contact person to discuss my personal security at the event. Do you ask the ACBL for a security contact before attending a tournament? Have you ever inquired with the American Mathematical Society about armed escorts for your lectures?

[kenberg]

 mgoetze, on 2013-August-17, 20:45, said:

I go to bridge tournaments all the time without asking for a contact person to discuss my personal security at the event. Do you ask the ACBL for a security contact before attending a tournament? Have you ever inquired with the American Mathematical Society about armed escorts for your lectures?

I feel quite safe at bridge tournaments and at AMS meetings. As I mentioned in an earlier post, my daughter, as part of her job, goes to places that would not be regarded as safe. She gets an armed escort when appropriate. I would prefer she not go, and sometimes she doesn't. Just where the current situation falls on this line I am not prepared to say. I will say, however, that I would never take kindly to someone telling me that a concern I might have for my own safety is illegitimate. Who would, really?

I confess I know too little about this to comment much beyond the simple observation above. I am most sorry that bridge players wishing to play bridge have become caught up in matters that have nothing to do with bridge. It's just too damn bad. I don't have all that much more to say on the matter and so I will shut up.

[Trinidad]

 kenberg, on 2013-August-17, 20:31, said:

Myself, I would never regard any question that I have about my own security as illegitimate.

Certainly. But there are questions and questions. You would ask: "Is it safe there?", "What can we do to improve security?" and "Should I go?". If one of the Israeli players would ask those questions that would be legitimate.

But that is not what is going on over here. It was Israel who contacted the organizers. And it was not as if concerns were raised and suggestions to solutions were offered.

If Israel would have said: "Dear organizers, our team would like to play in your tournament. We recognize that throughout the years we haven't been the best of friends and we are worried about the security of our players. Let's get over our differences - because they don't have anything to do with bridge - and work together to take care of these worries." that would have been legitimate.

But again, that seems to be not the case here. Israel requested information about the security. That is like Iran (or Al Qaida) requesting security information from the ACBL.

But, of course, "offering to work together and solve things" is not an option in this political game. "Requesting information" that one obviously is not going to get and then yell "murder" is the way to play this.

Rik

[gnasher]

 mgoetze, on 2013-August-17, 17:30, said:

I disagree on the legitimacy of the question.

Do you really mean that it's illegitimate to ask "Can we talk to someone about security?"

[c_corgi]

We actually know very little. It would be easy to write versions of the story to show any or all of GABSI, IBF and WBF in a very poor light without being contradicted by known facts. All that we do know is that two countries cannot get along sufficiently well for a national bridge team from one to visit the other. It is possible that any or all of the bridge organisations involved did everything within their power to prevent the current situation, but were undermined by their governments.

Whatever the cause of the situation, the Israeli team(s) which are unable to attend are clearly victims of it. This is very sad, but it is not going to change. Reading various forums I see a lot of outrage and denunciation of GABSI and WBF, interspersed with tit-for-tat denunciations of Israel and IBF. What has happened is that the political differences between two countries have translated into quarrels between the bridge players of those countries and their sympathisers. Instead of harbouring ineffectual grudges, we should unite and support the Indonesian hosting of the championships. This does not mean we should pretend nothing has gone badly wrong, it would merely demonstrate goodwill and acknowledge that the adversarial approach is not productive. A better outlet for the frustration would be to campaign for more robust and transparent procedures within WBF, so that a similar situation can be prevented – or at least clearly understood – in future.

[gnasher]

 Trinidad, on 2013-August-18, 01:55, said:

But again, that seems to be not the case here. Israel requested information about the security. That is like Iran (or Al Qaida) requesting security information from the ACBL.

A comparable sequence of events would be:
- The ACBL agrees to host a bridge tournament, and agrees to welcome all eligible teams.
- An Iranian team becomes eligible.
- The Iranian bridge federation, acting on behalf of the team, asks the ACBL if they can discuss security.

In that situation I would certainly expect the ACBL to discuss security, even if the discussion consisted of no more than the ACBL making vague assurances and refusing to go into specifics.

[the hog]

And if the Iranian team wanted to bring its own bodyguards?

[the hog]

"All that we do know is that two countries cannot get along sufficiently well for a national bridge team from one to visit the other."
That is not correct. Israel was free to visit; they withdrew,

[Trinidad]

 gnasher, on 2013-August-18, 03:53, said:

A comparable sequence of events would be:
- The ACBL agrees to host a bridge tournament, and agrees to welcome all eligible teams.
- An Iranian team becomes eligible.
- The Iranian bridge federation, acting on behalf of the team, asks the ACBL if they can discuss security.

In that situation I would certainly expect the ACBL to discuss security, even if the discussion consisted of no more than the ACBL making vague assurances and refusing to go into specifics.

Asking if you can discuss security (for your participants) is different from asking about security...

But other than that, this seems to be more or less what happened (though I am not sure whether it was the Israeli BF who did the asking). Specific assurances were given (and can be found on the resort's web site), vague assurances were added where they (quite obviously) refused to be specific. More information was requested, the request was not answered. Israel withdrew.

Given the fact that this is a political game, it wouldn't have mattered whether the Indonesians would have replied to the request or added more security measures. The Israelis would have asked for more... until Indonesia would refuse... and the political game would have had the same outcome: Indonesia refused!! We have to withdraw!! The fact that the request was unreasonable beyond ridiculous -who would give information about security to an enemy?- is irrelevant for this political game.

Rik

[c_corgi]

 the hog, on 2013-August-18, 05:18, said:

"All that we do know is that two countries cannot get along sufficiently well for a national bridge team from one to visit the other."
That is not correct. Israel was free to visit; they withdrew,

Wasn't that because they couldn't get along sufficiently well to make arrangements which were mutually acceptable? I realise that they withdrew, but I don't see any way that it contradicts my statement.

[mgoetze]

 gnasher, on 2013-August-18, 03:40, said:

Do you really mean that it's illegitimate to ask "Can we talk to someone about security?"

No, what I mean is that it's unreasonable to expect a (positive) answer to this question.

[blackshoe]

 Trinidad, on 2013-August-18, 01:55, said:

That is like Iran (or Al Qaida) requesting security information from the ACBL.

That's absurd.

[rhm]

 mgoetze, on 2013-August-17, 20:45, said:

I go to bridge tournaments all the time without asking for a contact person to discuss my personal security at the event. Do you ask the ACBL for a security contact before attending a tournament? Have you ever inquired with the American Mathematical Society about armed escorts for your lectures?

There are many comparisons here, which are completely misleading. This is one of the more absurd ones.
Before I go to a tournament, I do of course not expect that anyone will discuss security concerns with me. One reason is I have no legitimate concerns, at least none, which differentiates me from other participants.
What is so difficult to understand that this is very different to an Israeli team representing their country in a championship in a Muslim country.
How many Munich 1972 incidents do we need, before even the most naive contributors to this thread will understand that difference.

Rainer Herrmann

[jonottawa]

 rhm, on 2013-August-18, 06:52, said:

There are many comparisons here, which are completely misleading. This is one of the more absurd ones.
Before I go to a tournament, I do of course not expect that anyone will discuss security concerns with me. One reason is I haven no legitimate concerns, at least none, which differentiates me from other participants.
What is so difficult to understand that this is very different to an Israeli team representing their country in a championship in a Muslim country.
How many Munich 1972 incidents do we need, before even the most naive contributors to this thread will understand that difference.

Rainer Herrmann

Enough with the Munich references already, please. You speak of absurdly misleading comparisons and then you make one of the biggest we've seen in this discussion.

A bridge tournament is far closer to an academic conference than to the olympic games. You may wish it weren't so, but it is.

If someone insisted that all Israeli players had psychological evaluations or background checks performed on them before being allowed to play in a particular tournament to ensure that they have never been associated with Kach and aren't the next Baruch Goldstein, we would all rightly find that deplorable and absurd. Even though that incident occurred much more recently and involved a far greater number of casualties than what transpired in Munich. Cave of the Patriarchs massacre

[ArtK78]

I returned to this thread for the first time in 24 hours to find many additional posts, the last one by Rainer Herrmann. In my opinion, his post got to the heart of the matter - the Israelis have a legitimate concern about their security when appearing in a competition in a Muslim nation. The Munich comparison is entirely legitimate and appropriate.

Others have mentioned that there are other Israeli nationals participating in the tournament in Bali. But they are not representing Israel. They can make their own decisions as to whether to participate or not. I wish them the best.

I left the thread and was looking at others. Then I noticed that there was an additional post by the esteemed Jonottowa, the primary protagonist of the disgrace that was the Bridgewinners thread on this subject. His post is consistent with everything that he posted on Bridgewinners.


I call on the administrators to closely monitor this thread (if they are not doing so already). It is on the verge of degenerating into a new version of the Bridgewinners thread, and if Jonottawa is going to being to participate frequently, then that is what will happen.

[Antrax]

 jonottawa, on 2013-August-18, 07:22, said:

If someone insisted that all Israeli players had psychological evaluations or background checks performed on them before being allowed to play in a particular tournament to ensure that they have never been associated with Kach and aren't the next Baruch Goldstein, we would all rightly find that deplorable and absurd. Even though that incident occurred much more recently and involved a far greater number of casualties than what transpired in Munich. Cave of the Patriarchs massacre

Kudos on the research, but that analogy is pretty off. It would make sense if Israel insisted that German players, or even Palestinian players, would be screened before participating. IOW, it would make perfect sense for anyone to ensure their safety when playing in a tournament hosted in Israel - even ignoring Jewish terrorist acts, Israel is a pretty dangerous place at times.