I love sports. But I don’t give one whit about tennis.
However, a pretty good sports story is emerging out of Wimbledon. Aisamul Haq Qureshi and Amir Hadad have advanced to the third round of the men’s mixed doubles. Qureshi becomes the first Pakistani to reach the third round of a Grand Slam event.
Pretty cool that a Pakistani is achieving success in any sport. He’s probably being received as a hero in his native country, right?
No.
Qureshi is a Muslim. He had the audacity to partner with a Jew for the tennis tournament.
As noted here, his country may ban him as an athlete.
What Quereshi’s partner said in response to the controversy is priceless.
“I didn’t even think about Qureshi being a Muslim. I just thought of him as another tennis player, a human being,” Hadad said.
Let’s not forget, Pakistan is our ally. (And yeah; I understand the very good reasons for that.)
I’m having great difficulty understanding the mind of somebody who feels compelled to issue a statement such as the one the Pakistani sports board director gave. I would assume it came as a result of a widespread outcry - which makes my stomach turn even worse.
Seeing shit like this is extremely discouraging.
The only thing that keeps me from completely losing hope is remembering what, say, Alabama was like, circa 1965. But it appears this form of hatred goes even deeper than black-white hatred.
Odd, of note Amir Hadad is quite obviously an Arabic name, meaning the fellow is an ‘Arab’ Jew, that is an eastern Jew. Amir = Emir, commander/prince. Hadad typical Shami Arab name (esp. Xtian but very widespread.)
Stupid.
As he should.
Yes, and?
The assumption is unfounded. Rather it is rather more likely that it is political posturing by Brigadier in question playing to the extremist crowd. Who are vocal (but not really tennis fans in general, oddly enough). Probably pre-emptive.
? Don’t be silly. About the same thing. You should learn more about both.
My final point was that attitudes can change, however hate-filled they may be at one point in time. That I imagine the same kind of outcry could have occurred at a similar point in my own country’s history, in certain regions of it, had the pairing been black-and-white. I don’t kid myself that prejudicial hatred no longer exists here; but I also don’t think such a black-white pairing would be a big deal here and now.
Do you disagree? Try to answer without being personally insulting. Just for kicks.
**
Quite possibly true. But, nonetheless, disturbing and disappointing, IMO.
From the article, they’re not complaining about Hadad’s religion, it’s his nationality. Big difference. In the 80s, plenty of countries had bans on playing with South African athletes - because we disapproved of some policies of the nation of South Africa. Pakistan disapproves of some policies of Israel.
I’m wondering…
Were there any USSR/USA partnerships at the height of the Cold War? Are there any American players currently partnered with Cubans?
I’d be surprised if there were. Impressed, but surprised.
The linked article kept trying to spin this as a Muslim/Jewish thing. But it really looks like that’s not the central issue (although I’m sure the Brigadier’s remarks play well to the antisemitic gallery in Pakistan…). If it was a Jewish-American and a British Muslim, say, it would be no big deal. This is a question of nationalities. And unfortunately, politics will always stuff around with sport…
By the way,
You do know that there’s this game called cricket, right?
Everything in Pakistan is politics. ‘Pakistan Sports Board director Brigadier Saulat Abbas’ is both a soldier and a politician so, presumably, his position on this has nothing to do with sport and an awful lot to do with protecting his back/proving his hard-line credentials/looking for higher office/etc.
Just an opportunist self-serving politician doing his thing. Everyday event in a capital near us all.
BTW, I should have mentioned that sport and politics are completely entwined in Pakistan – best example might be the administration and selection of the national cricket team: More intrigue and skulduggery than you can shake a stick at.
So Hamad’s offense in the eyes of the Pakistani sports community might be that he is Israeli; not that he is a Jew? So what?
So it’s just political posturing? So what?
Does that make it any less disgusting?
FWIW, Hadad seems to think it has to do with his religion, as noted here
Quoting Hadad:
From the same article:
Due to the bloodshed in the Middle East, Qureshi’s pairing with an Israeli is a hopeful sign that institutionalized hatred and conflict can be overcome. You fucking schmuck.
Even Qureshi’s “supporter” in the article is half-assed.
Who said he had no option? He sure didn’t.
And here are some pearls of wisdom from S.K. Tressler, Pakistan’s Sports Minister. (I would assume in a higher position than the sports board director quoted in the initially linked article, or a similarly high one.) Tressler is also playing the “he didn’t have a choice” angle, as noted in the article.
I think there’s a big difference. If it turns out that the Brigadier’s problem is Hadad’s Israeliness rather than his Jewishness, then it moves into the same sort of territory as the sports boycotts of South Africa in the apartheit days. Apart from the fact that that was an organized policy of many countries, and this is just random disapproval by one official. Sport is often a political arena - all that changes is what exact political mileage is being attempted.
I had also noticed that Hadad related the issue to religion. In fact, as far as I can see, ALL the people who are ‘pro Hadad and Qureshi’ have related it to religion, and the people who are ‘anti Hadad and Qureshi’ relate it to nationality. So you get the following dialogue.
Side 1: We don’t think Pakistanis should mix with those nasty Israelis.
Side 2: What do you mean? We think Muslims and Jews should be able to get along fine.
Which seems to be at the very least a case of people reading into the Brigadier’s statement something that he didn’t actually say.
To frame the Brigadier’s statement as being in terms of religion is to paint him as a raving anti-semite, which is obviously a Bad and Wrong thing to be (and which he may well be, for all I know - it’s just that that there’s not enough evidence in his actual statement to draw this conclusion). But if it’s politics … well, ok, he’s got a problem with the foreign policies of Israel. Does he have a right to that? Sure - anyone’s got a right to disapprove of another country’s foreign policy. Is this a constructive way of expressing that disapproval? No, not very. He gets about half a :rolleyes: from the Australian judge…
Milo - I’m not defending the guy because he’s obviously a self-serving opportunist but…
If we assume a somewhat radical Islamic mind set for a moment (not uncommon in Pakistani politics) and momentarily accept that Israel is occupying the West Bank, oppressing Palestinians, etc…how far is the Minister’s position from that adopted by most Western countries during the Apartheid era in South Africa (when sporting boycotts were all the vogue) ?
He might even point to the slavery conference in South Africa last year and at which the US and Israel walked at because of the international community’s attitude to the Palestinian people (as opposed to Palestinian politicians) for a kind of vindication.
There is a history of sport, politics and perceived injustice operating in tandem. In fact, although I don’t think this is relevant to the current situation, it’s been acknowledged by several South African politicians (of that era) that the sporting boycott was the single most influential factor in ending Apartheid.
Again, I’m not agreeing with the man but if we want to look at this in the round (objectively, if you will) and in a broader context, there are many shades of opinion other than that of predominately white, first world, Christian, comfortable, sport loving folk. And some of them have little difficulty linking the plight of blacks in South Africa with the current situation in Gaza and on the West Bank.
Sometimes I wish the folks on the West Bank had more computers and better Internet access cos it would be nice to hear a perspective on this issue from that direction.
And it should be noted, as the links show, we’re no longer talking about one person from Pakistan making the comments.
I think sports can be a great uniter. I have an extremely strained relationship with my father, but sports are one of the few things we can talk about. I think sports can be a great uniter in the world, too. I get all sappy when the world sets aside its differences every two or four years for things like the Olympics and the World Cup. (OK, the latter may be a bad example. Get a Brazilian and/or Englishman in a room with an Argentinian during a soccer match. ;))
For that reason, I think the '72 Olympic massacre was particularly abominable.
For that reason, the U.S.'s decision to boycott the Moscow Olympics in '80 was stupid.
And this tennis flap is bad for the same reason.
Oh well; they lost. But they are talking about staying together for future tournaments, including the U.S. Open. And Qureshi seems to have a great attitude about it. He said (paraphrasing), “If my country decides it wants to continue to suck in tennis, it can go ahead and ban me from playing for it.”
What, exactly, is men’s mixed doubles? Given the context here, I would assume that one is required to choose a partner of a different religious, national or ethnic background, yes?
It would be very suprising, since at the height of the Cold War, the Soviets wouldn’t let any athlete out of the country, unless it was to participate as part of a Soviet team, the Olympics, for example.
Fidel Castro, still holding on that Soviet idea, still doesn’t let his athletes out of Cuba.
With the policies that the Soviets had, and Fidel still has, the type of pairing that has caused this uproar, couldn’t happen.
