This seems like a really complex issue that doesn't easily fall into one ideological camp or another.  On the one hand I generally sympathize with Europeans who would like to preserve western tolerance in the face of the multiculturalists' de facto support for Islamism.   

On the other hand I think most Jews will see red flags going off whenever a country criticizes a minority population for "dual loyalties," especially with Mearsheimer/Walt making the NY Times Bestseller list.  Of course, it's a shame that national loyalty for a Muslim has to express itself in the form of hostility to Israel. 

But this guy seems more a victim of larger politico-social realities than an agent of intolerance.  After all--he didn't try to stop the game from happening, or start a campaign or boycott against Israel--he just tried to quietly keep himself out of the country.  That's not an honorable thing to do, but I have trouble seeing the guy as a villain.

--Z

Here's a guy who has principled political objections to Israeli policy of sufficient magnitude to compel his opting out of engaging the Israeli team. Whether you agree with the analysis that led him to take this position or not, there's nothing untoward about the idea that one may express his convictions in this fashion. In fact, it's quite laudable for someone to place his principles before his wish to ply his trade.

All this huffing and puffing about the clash of civilizations and the insult to Euro polity his action represents is bogus, an effort to misdirect. "Anti-semitism", "Muslim immigration", "intolerant theocracy", "Mearsheimer and Walt"-yow! Now just work female genital mutilation in there somewhere and you've got a perfect score.

Ismail

I must admit I am confused Ismail. What precisely are his political objections? He refers to "personal reasons" and says that he won't be allowed back into Iran if he visits Israel. His line of reasoning seems to be that he wants to go back to Iran and wants to see his parents: in which case playing or not playing in Israel is entirely down to Iran's utterly unfair law on those who have visited Israel.

I fail to see any mention of  a political reason, let alone a principled one.

If he did choose to express a political opinion then I would have to censor him anyway. If you choose to play for a major football team and the national side you have to be fully aware that there is the possibility of  going places you don't want to go. You can't have your cake (fame, wages, travel) without excepting that you also have to eat your sprouts too.

To a degree it is a clash of civilisations and the way they view certain nations. The obvious example is Apartheid South Africa, boycotted by many Western States. In the same way many Islamic countries (and it is only Islamic countries) boycott Israel and actively refuse to acknowledge its existance. What we are seeing is a clash of opinions with each opinion belonging to a seperate civilisation, even if those opinions are not central to said civilisations.

The Muslim immigration (although immigration, not Muslim immigration specifically was under debate) question is again well founded as it refers to a very simple idea: that immigration brings people who for cultural reasons are unable or unwilling to do certain things. Obvious examples being treatment of women by Muslims in the medical industry. The question is asked: what is greater? The values of of your adopted country? Or those of your previous? Perhaps this footballing question was not the perfect example but it certainly contained the critical element.

Anti-semitism is always going to be a debate with Israel. It is no secret that much of the Middle East is anti-semitic. It hardly requires much googling to discover references to Israel couched in fairly obvious language. Regardless of how common this sentiment is it is still an issue (in the same way that racism is still an issue in the UK despite most people not being racist). One has to question exactly why Israel is boycotted by so many states. And the answer is that, even if it is not the greater whole, anti-semitism plays its part. Therefore to plead a national policy as an excuse is to subject that policy to scruinisation. 

As for mention of an intolerant theocracy, well, what else can one call it? Peeved Prophet-lovers? Mildly Miffed Mullahs? Iran is ruled by intolerant, conservative, theocratic forces.Many of its politics are driven by this. To claim Irans refusal to acknowledge the existance of Israel or its banning of those with Israeli visas is driven only by cold hard national politics is to be unspeakably naieve. Why not call a spade a spade?

Rather than misdirection this all seems to me merely to place this single case within the greater framework in International Relations.

Your belief that this is an auto anti-Islam piece aiming to score points("Now just work...score.") seems to me to be without proof. Certainly Eugenides turned it into a piece on Islam. But that is where the debate at the centre of the piece lies. Every question he has asked is fair and relevant. To slur it as another anti-Islam piece is to demean the very idea of debate and to miss the point. This is a piece on immigration, on culture, on Islamism. It starts factually, discusses rationally and explores the topic. Note the use of Iran and Iranian rather than just Islam. Mr Eugenides ascribes blame to whom it lies: Islam or Iran or Ashkan.

Perhaps it is only a personal belief but if Mr Eugenides had been meaning to make it merely a contentious firestarter of a piece, filled with bile, scorn and numerous examples of the ills of Islam then I can't help but think we might have seen rather more of the bile, scorn and ills of Islam. Regardless he seems to hate everyone so at least the hate is on a level playing field. ;)

Of course that is my opinion, if you have one in return please do share. 

Guy:

You state: "If you choose to play for a major football team and the national side
you have to be fully aware that there is the possibility of going
places you don't want to go. You can't have your cake (fame, wages,
travel) without excepting that you also have to eat your sprouts too."

That's not really true. If you choose to play on a major football team your position with respect to going places you don't want to go (or doing things you don't want to do) is no different than any other employee. That means you can refuse to do whatever the market will bear. For example, if my employer asked me to go to Iraq, I'm pretty sure I could refuse without getting fired. Why? Well, by not going to Iraq I might make myself less valuable to my employer then if I obediently did everything they said. On the other hand, I think the firm would survive if they had to send someone else in my place, and would prefer to have me employed without going to Iraq then to lose me entirely. Of course, on a personal level I might be a far less useful worker then I imagine myself to be, but nevertheless the general principal stands: we're not slaves to our bosses, and can refuse to do their bidding from time to time.

In Dejagah's case, the team decided it was better to set an example and suspend the player than to keep him around for the 99% of games that will NOT be played in Iran. That's the team's prerogative, but I don't think it had to end up that way.

--Z