the hog Posted August 17, 2013 Report Share Posted August 17, 2013 Well, the truth is that Indonesia did NOT say that Israel was not welcome. A lot of the posters on the Bridge Winners site, (and one or two here), either lied or at least severely distorted the truth. Israel withdrew - end of story! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted August 17, 2013 Report Share Posted August 17, 2013 …end of story!We can hope it's the end of the story, but folks just won't leave it alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyberyeti Posted August 17, 2013 Report Share Posted August 17, 2013 Well, the truth is that Indonesia did NOT say that Israel was not welcome. A lot of the posters on the Bridge Winners site, (and one or two here), either lied or at least severely distorted the truth. Israel withdrew - end of story! That's a half truth at best. Israel did withdraw, but only because Indonesia would not discuss security despite repeated requests (the visa issue is a red herring). Basically Indonesia acted in a way guaranteed to make Israel withdraw, that's the equivalent to saying you're not welcome. It's a bit like saying to Israel that for security reasons you can't leave the complex, for biosecurity reasons you can't bring your own food and we only serve shellfish, but you're welcome to come, guaranteed withdrawal. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted August 17, 2013 Report Share Posted August 17, 2013 This is a serious issue and I apologize for not being fully informed, but I have sort of a general view on matters like this: I am pretty much a trusting guy, but there are places that I would not go unless there was a good reason, and there are places that I just wouldn't go. My life, I get to decide. Security arrangements would play a role in my decision. So far, probably everyone agrees. In the case at hand, my understanding is that security arrangements never got discussed, there was simply no response. My daughter, as part of her job, sometimes goes to places that I wish she did not go. Security is part of the preparation. Of course it is. Maybe the women would want security arrangements that would seem excessive to me. Or maybe not. Who knows? If it got to the point where one side insisted on security that the other side found intrusive, for example three armed soldiers five feet from the playing table at all times, then we would at least know what was asked for and what was refused. The players, individually and as a team, could decide. We could second guess the decisions, or we could just bemoan the lack of agreement. But here, as I understand it, we have a lack of openess, a lack of discussion, a lack of clarity. This seems completely wrong to me. I am an outsider on this, but that's how I see it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted August 17, 2013 Report Share Posted August 17, 2013 That's a half truth at best. Israel did withdraw, but only because Indonesia would not discuss security despite repeated requests (the visa issue is a red herring). Basically Indonesia acted in a way guaranteed to make Israel withdraw, that's the equivalent to saying you're not welcome. My understanding is that Israel withdrew because the WBF said "we need to know RIGHT NOW whether you're coming or not" at a time when the security concerns had not yet been resolved. Yes, Indonesia was dragging its feet, but attempts at resolution were still ongoing. Could a resolution have been reached? Who knows? :unsure: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted August 17, 2013 Report Share Posted August 17, 2013 My understanding is that Israel withdrew because the WBF said "we need to know RIGHT NOW whether you're coming or not" at a time when the security concerns had not yet been resolved. Yes, Indonesia was dragging its feet, but attempts at resolution were still ongoing. Could a resolution have been reached? Who knows? :unsure: In addition to this, its worth noting that one Israeli citizen is competing as a member of the US team. Two others are planning to attend to defend their title in the transnational mixed teams. The only Israeli teams that aren't participating are those "officially" representing Israel who were unable to get permission to attend from their own government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgoetze Posted August 17, 2013 Report Share Posted August 17, 2013 There is only one side that put roadblocks in the way of Israel's participation in the event.Yup, and that was clearly the Israeli side. So I don't see why they or their American puppets are whining. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyberyeti Posted August 17, 2013 Report Share Posted August 17, 2013 Yup, and that was clearly the Israeli side. So I don't see why they or their American puppets are whining. 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgoetze Posted August 17, 2013 Report Share Posted August 17, 2013 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 disagree on the legitimacy of the question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted August 17, 2013 Report Share Posted August 17, 2013 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. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyberyeti Posted August 18, 2013 Report Share Posted August 18, 2013 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted August 18, 2013 Report Share Posted August 18, 2013 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted August 18, 2013 Report Share Posted August 18, 2013 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. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted August 18, 2013 Report Share Posted August 18, 2013 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... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgoetze Posted August 18, 2013 Report Share Posted August 18, 2013 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted August 18, 2013 Report Share Posted August 18, 2013 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinidad Posted August 18, 2013 Report Share Posted August 18, 2013 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted August 18, 2013 Report Share Posted August 18, 2013 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?" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c_corgi Posted August 18, 2013 Report Share Posted August 18, 2013 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted August 18, 2013 Report Share Posted August 18, 2013 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted August 18, 2013 Report Share Posted August 18, 2013 And if the Iranian team wanted to bring its own bodyguards? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted August 18, 2013 Report Share Posted August 18, 2013 "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, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinidad Posted August 18, 2013 Report Share Posted August 18, 2013 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c_corgi Posted August 18, 2013 Report Share Posted August 18, 2013 "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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgoetze Posted August 18, 2013 Report Share Posted August 18, 2013 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.