[hrothgar]

jillybean, on 2013-July-09, 11:47, said:

I'd put my money on this and the token response to the issue leaves me with an impression of "and we don't care".

Here is an alternative explanation

1. The WBF cares about the issue
2. The WBF doesn't see any value in engaging with a random group of self appointed idiots on Bridgewinners who have various axes to grind
3. Some discussions took place behind the scenes that didn't lead anywhere productive
4. The China offer is being used to try to smooth things over

Please consider that the discussions on Bridgewinners and the like are being pumped up by people like Rick Eissenstat, Roland Wald, and Hanan Sher.
All have strong opinions, however, none of them are directly involved in the situation.
At best, they are reporting (and spinning) information from individuals like Eitan Levy who are (presumably) direct participants.

I have some sympathy for Roland and the like (I don't like it when the ACBL ignores my "oh so reasonable suggestions").
At the same time, if I were running the WBF I wouldn't dignify the Bridgewinner's forum with a response.
(And if I were running the ACBL, I might very well ignore the lunatic in Natick with all his complaints)

[billw55]

This is all totally new to me as of right now. Evidently I don't much keep up with international bridge dealings.

In the bridgewinners thread, I noticed some comments that a previous event scheduled in Bali had been relocated. Does anyone know the details and circumstances of that situation?

[Hanoi5]

2001, 9/11 occurs, Bush unleashes war and several countries weren't sure it was a good idea to travel to a muslim country.

[ArtK78]

billw55, on 2013-July-09, 12:57, said:

This is all totally new to me as of right now. Evidently I don't much keep up with international bridge dealings.

In the bridgewinners thread, I noticed some comments that a previous event scheduled in Bali had been relocated. Does anyone know the details and circumstances of that situation?

It was right after 9/11, and there were significant security concerns relating to ALL of the participants in the event.

The championships were moved to Paris on short notice.

Supposedly, Bali was promised that the championships would return at a future date. Here we are, and the same security concerns (although now not applying to the competition general - just to the Israeli team) are still present.

Sorry if I offend anyone, but if the WBF continues to hold its championships in countries that cannot guarantee the safety of the competitors, then the WBF should not be holding the championships.

[CSGibson]

ArtK78, on 2013-July-09, 12:59, said:

Sorry if I offend anyone, but if the WBF continues to hold its championships in countries that cannot guarantee the safety of the competitors, then the WBF should not be holding the championships.

My understanding is that the Indonesians did guarantee the safety of the competitors. As much as one can ever guarentee safety, that is, which is with meaningless platitudes. The Israelis wanted to discuss actual arrangements, which, if I were a security chief, I might balk at too.

[PhilKing]

billw55, on 2013-July-09, 12:57, said:

This is all totally new to me as of right now. Evidently I don't much keep up with international bridge dealings.

In the bridgewinners thread, I noticed some comments that a previous event scheduled in Bali had been relocated. Does anyone know the details and circumstances of that situation?

2001. There were security concerns regarding terrorist threats in Indonesia, which sadly proved to be well-founded. The event was moved to Paris.

The following year there was a bombing in the Sari Club in Kuta, Bali, which was just over a mile from where the event was scheduled to take place. Over 200 people were killed.

This was particularly shocking for some of us, since we had patronised the bar a few times during (I mean before and after) the 1995 World Juniors Championships.

[ArtK78]

CSGibson, on 2013-July-09, 13:08, said:

My understanding is that the Indonesians did guarantee the safety of the competitors. As much as one can ever guarentee safety, that is, which is with meaningless platitudes. The Israelis wanted to discuss actual arrangements, which, if I were a security cheif, I might balk at too.

The Israelis have plenty of reason to want to discuss the actual security arrangements. I am sure no one can forget the Munich Olympics.

[Fluffy]

I didn't find much support when I suggested that WBF should provide a tool to let teams that for whatever reason are unable to play face to face, to do it from distance, is it that weird idea? I mean it is not best, since the tournament is designed to be played face to face, but I think it is clear that it is better to have the appropriate team than another one.

[CSGibson]

ArtK78, on 2013-July-09, 13:13, said:

The Israelis have plenty of reason to want to discuss the actual security arrangements. I am sure no one can forget the Munich Olympics.

I agree they have reason to want that access.

But if I am a security chief, I think as follows: "The more people that know specifics about security arrangements, the more vulnerable we are. If I make an exception for the Israelis, then I have to make an exception for everyone. Much better to give assurances, and not give out specifics to anyone."

I would be especially worried about giving out security arrangements to countries like Israel and the United States which have an active history of advancing foreign policy through clandestine services, btw.

[jonottawa]

CSGibson, on 2013-July-09, 15:10, said:

I agree they have reason to want that access.

But if I am a security chief, I think as follows: "The more people that know specifics about security arrangements, the more vulnerable we are. If I make an exception for the Israelis, then I have to make an exception for everyone. Much better to give assurances, and not give out specifics to anyone."

I would be especially worried about giving out security arrangements to countries like Israel and the United States which have an active history of advancing foreign policy through clandestine services, btw.

This is the one area that troubles me, because I don't have any expertise in this area so I rely on my own 'common sense', fully aware that I might be completely wrong. Had the Bridgewinners thread been focused on this issue exclusively (which is the only remotely valid complaint that I've been made aware of,) and been populated by people who knew what they were talking about, discussing the issue in a rational, civil, consensus-building way, I would have stayed out of it.

My 'trying to be fair-minded' belief is that Israel is entitled to expect about the same level of cooperation that they would give if they were hosting the tournament and Indonesian security people were making inquiries. My suspicion is that their level of cooperation would be comparable to what has been offered by the Indonesians. I tend to agree with CSGibson that, as 'security chief', the less I reveal about my security arrangements, the better.

[ggwhiz]

CSGibson, on 2013-July-09, 15:10, said:

I agree they have reason to want that access.

But if I am a security chief, I think as follows: "The more people that know specifics about security arrangements, the more vulnerable we are. If I make an exception for the Israelis, then I have to make an exception for everyone. Much better to give assurances, and not give out specifics to anyone."

I would be especially worried about giving out security arrangements to countries like Israel and the United States which have an active history of advancing foreign policy through clandestine services, btw.

My reading of the bridgewinners thread suggests that nothing specific was asked for just SOMETHING. Generalities like "extra" security beyond the normal tourist stuff with very minor disclosure may well have avoided the whole thing and they wouldn't even have to tell the truth.

[Hanoi5]

ggwhiz, on 2013-July-09, 17:06, said:

My reading of the bridgewinners thread suggests that nothing specific was asked for just SOMETHING. Generalities like "extra" security beyond the normal tourist stuff with very minor disclosure may well have avoided the whole thing and they wouldn't even have to tell the truth.

Someone in the bridgewinners thread copied and pasted a link found in the internet of the security in Nusa Dua: (I quote from bridgewinners)

"The following safety & security measures at the Westin Resort Nusa Dua Bali and Bali International Convention Centre relates to normal conditions. If threat levels are raised, the safety & security measures are commensurately increased. Additionally, safety & security levels are increased during high level conferences and as requested by conference/convention planners.

1. Security posts at entrances with boom gates, fully manned 24 hours a day with 3-4 security personnel.

2. All cars are checked with metal detectors including the interior and boot.

3. ID cards collected from drivers, car number recorded.

4. 66 CCTV cameras strategically installed within the properties.

5. 4 units of 32" monitors installed at Security Command Center with continuous security staff presence 24 hours a day. Capability for digital recording and playback up to 30 days back.

6. Patrol systems are installed allowing monitoring the time each area has been inspected. Security staff as well as the night manager are required to follow the patrol schedule, which is checked daily by management.

7. Employees cars have been issued parking passes.

8. 8 hand-held metal detectors and 2 walk-through gates are installed for personnel and package/baggage monitoring.

9. Car park near the lobby is temporally closed with all cars required to park away from the building.

10. 24 hour Emergency Response Team with 9 members per shift.

11. On site clinic with 24 hour doctor and nurse coverage and on site ambulance.

In addition of the above, Nusa Dua, as five-star tourist enclave, benefits from its secluded location and is easier to control than crowded areas with limited street access, narrow roads, heavy traffic and overbuilt areas. The Nusa Dua area can be accessed through 4 main gates where traffic can be filtered. There are actually several layers of Security within the Nusa Dua area as follow:

1. Polsek Kuta Selatan with 108 officers.

2. Nusa Dua Tourist Police with 12 officers.

3. Benoa Marine Police with 17 Officers.

4. BTDC Security Department with 84 staff."

Interesting to note it says they can raise the security if organizers of events deem it neccessary. I found that information very complete, but then again I know nothing about security.

[Cascade]

ArtK78, on 2013-July-09, 12:59, said:

Sorry if I offend anyone, but if the WBF continues to hold its championships in countries that cannot guarantee the safety of the competitors, then the WBF should not be holding the championships.

You mean like the United States?

[sfi]

Having skimmed through the Bridgewinners thread, it sounds like the available information is that:

• The Israeli team requires their government to approve the travel.
  
• The Israeli government requires additional information relating to security.
  
• The Israeli bridge federation asked the Indonesian bridge federation for a suitable contact.
  
• No contact was provided.

I may have missed some of the discussion, but it seems to me that the WBF should have been heavily involved with facilitating this request. Leaving it up to the individual federations seems inappropriate for such an event. Why is their role not being more heavily scrutinised? Or do I have the essential facts wrong?

[Elianna]

hrothgar, on 2013-July-09, 10:22, said:

2. I don’t believe that Indonesia’s behavior wrt to visa’s rises to the standards required to disqualify them from hosting this event. Indonesia and Israel do not formally recognize one another. Indonesia does not issue “just in time” visa entries to a number of countries (including both Israeli and Pakistan). The Indonesia authorities and Israeli reached an agreement to issue visas in a standard transit hub close by to Indonesia. This might not have been the most convenient way to do things, however, all this was known in advance at the point in time at which the site of selected. I think that the whole Visa issue is a distraction.

My understanding was that the Israeli team would have to pay for travel arrangements for a few people from the Indonesian Federation to meet them at said travel hub, but otherwise, visas were obtainable.

[hrothgar]

Elianna, on 2013-July-09, 18:53, said:

My understanding was that the Israeli team would have to pay for travel arrangements for a few people from the Indonesian Federation to meet them at said travel hub, but otherwise, visas were obtainable.

Yes, at the crippling cost of $250 for each of two Indonesian officials.
Moreover, this is the exact same arrangements that are required for the Pakistani Venice Cup team (amongst others)
Perhaps he various teams affected might arrange to share the crippling fees.

Its worth noting that the whole issue might have be avoided had the Indonesians been able to open a consulate in Ramallah last year.
Sadly, this had to be placed on hold (seems that the Israeli's were unwilling to give entrance visa's to the Indonesian foreign minister)

[nige1]

The WBF approved Bali security arrangements but Indonesia strone-walled attempts by the Israel women's team to obtain visas and vet security. The WBF found a way to facilitate visas but weren't much help with Israeli security concerns, so Israel withdrew.

IMO, Indonesia values its reputation as a Muslim country, so is naturally reluctant to accede publicly to Israeli requests. Even now, however, with some effort, the WBF might be able to save everyone's face. For example it might employ Israeli security personnel to make final checks on its behalf. I could even hire some Israeli TDs. Withdrawal threats by a few National Bridge Organisations might concentrate everyone's mind. If all else fails, given adequate supervision, the Israeli players could participate on-line.

[wank]

i would have been much more interested if i thought this was an intentional policy on the part of the indonesians. restricting sporting links was a major factor behind ending south africa's repressive policies. before anyone tells me that no members of the the israeli venice cup team are involved in anything morally dubious, beit it so or not, that's not the point. applying sanctions against the entire populace of a nation is considered a legitimate tactic to encourage citizens to pressure their governments into behaving in a more responsible manner.

[ArtK78]

wank, on 2013-July-09, 23:13, said:

i would have been much more interested if i thought this was an intentional policy on the part of the indonesians. restricting sporting links was a major factor behind ending south africa's repressive policies. before anyone tells me that no members of the the israeli venice cup team are involved in anything morally dubious, beit it so or not, that's not the point. applying sanctions against the entire populace of a nation is considered a legitimate tactic to encourage citizens to pressure their governments into behaving in a more responsible manner.

What is your point?

[Antrax]

Presumably that the thread is boring?