< Continued from page 1

The Case for Dubai

Israel's alleged apartheid was not the reason for Shahar Peer being denied a visa. The event that precipitated the controversy was Israel's war on Gaza in late December 2008 and early January 2009--the most devastating, concentrated attack on Palestinians in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Some 1,200 Palestinians, most of them civilians, were killed in the brief war (compared with 13 Israelis).


Israeli athletes were greeted with protest where they went, in Europe or Asia.

If apartheid South Africa was isolated from the sports world for years, and for good reason, if the Soviet Union's 1980 Olympics were boycotted by the United States, Israel and many other countries for good reason (the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan), then why shouldn't an Israeli player be banned from entering an Arab country showing solidarity with the Palestinians of Gaza?

The Case Against Dubai

If the UAE was banning Peer out of some principled position against Israeli atrocities in Gaza, or Israeli repression in the Occupied Territories, and there's certainly room to make that argument along the lines of boycotts Dubai supporters have in mind, then the UAE should say so. It didn't. It doesn't. Instead it invents some bogus rationale no one believes.

Where tennis players are concerned, there's also a difference with, say, national cricket teams or Olympic athletes. Peer represents herself, not Israel. She would have played at the Dubai Open as Shahar Peer, not as Israel.

For all we know she's an ardent member of Peace Now, B’Tselem and Ta'ayush.

(Doubtful: athletes are too self-absorbed to be much concerned with the world beyond the shine of their navel ring, but that's besides the point). So even if the UAE had the honesty to stand against Israeli policies, it could not, should not, stand against an individual athlete's right to participate in a tournament. That would handcuff an individual's freedom to be what she wants to be in national presumptions over which she has no control. It would be rankly illiberal (not that the UAE would know how to spell liberalism).

Otherwise, why not exclude the Williams sisters to protest the US' rendition and torture programs, and Guantanamo, and civilian massacres in Afghanistan, and on and on? Just as fair a case to make against those as against Israeli brutality. But no. As always, the Israelis are the whipping boys. Or in Peer's case, the whipping girl.

Bigotry, of course, is the chewing gum of simple minds.

Where It Stands

The South Florida Sun-Sentinel reported that the WTA "fined the government-run tournament $300,000," which is like asking Donald Trump for 50 cents, "while awarding Peer $44,250 plus 130 ranking points, and demanding that the UAE grant Israeli players visas at least eight weeks before the 2010 event. If not, they said they would cancel the event."

In other words the WTA tour spoke a good game and still cashed in on the event. What it did do amounted to nothing more than words from WTA chairman and CEO Larry Scott, who said the WTA would "send the message that the tour would not tolerate discrimination of any kind and we will never allow this situation to happen again, in UAE, or elsewhere."

Meanwhile player after player, led by the Williams sisters, claimed to be totally behind Peer, supporting her 100%, absolutely, yes, no question--then went on court to play as if nothing had happened. The Williams sisters actually met in the semifinal, with Venus defeating Serena in three sets and going on to beat Virginie Razzano to win the championship.

Before the Rafael Nadal-Roger Federer rivalry heated up a couple of years ago, the women's tour was more exciting than the men's, showing the men how it's done. Not this time. The men's Dubai championship began without Federer, Nadal or Andy Roddick, all of whom withdrew. Nadal and Feder claimed, somewhat dubiously, injuries. Roddick said he just didn't agree with the UAE's decision to keep Peer out.

Dubai tournament officials quickly claimed that by making it all the way to the final of a tournament in Memphis (and winning it, for the 27th title of his career), Roddick couldn't make it to his first round match anyway. The officials are, once again, full of it: Tournaments routinely accommodate players' over-scheduling.

Two other top-ten players didn't participate in the championship, but the likes of Gilles Simon of France and Andy Murray of Britain happily took their revised third and second seeds into the drained draw. (Murray isn't interested in not playing for principle: Having won the the World Challenge exhibition event in Abu Dhabi and the Qatar Classic in Doha this year, he wanted to be the first player to win the Dubai championship in the same year.)

And for what? The winner takes home $383,000, the runner-up, $180,000. Never let honorable conduct stand in the way of dishonorable lucre.