I don't have any real answer (of the form "we should or should not agree because..."), but I wanted to respond because your question is so interesting.  For me its interest lies in the way this kind of scenario, and the ways we might respond to it, brings practical politics unusually close to the underpinnings of political theory.  I'm tempted to say it lays bare the state of current geopolitics.  It also certainly brings our affective responses into close contact with our ideas about politics.

One problem with the question is that it's hard to talk about it without a 'we': "should we agree to that?"  This could be just the convenient 'we' of argumentative discourse, but it could also be an invocation to a hypothetical identity, perhaps a call for a tactical alignment of individuals who are like-minded at least concerning this matter.  It can also slip into a 'we' that means the subject of western political discourse, so that it mirrors the Dubai government's constitution of a politics of exclusivity.

Maybe there is no way around that dilemma of who is speaking, and to whom, but I doubt any progress can be made on the question until it's acknowledged.

One other comment about a pragmatic approach to the question:  The 'we' is apparently someone who has the power to agree or disagree, to affect the governing body's decisions or maybe the other athletes'.  But you've already said that it's unlikely that there would be enough social pressure to force a change by the governing body.  So what is at stake exactly?  I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't protest the decision in whatever way might be effective, but as I read your post I understood less and less what is being asked.

One question you might be asking is, "Is the governing body's decision justifiable?"  That is, do practical politics sometimes trump ideals, and can events such as this (or, say, the Beijing Olympics) be worthwhile in producing a global society even if they are compromised?  But I'm not sure if that is what you had in mind.

It's interesting; I think that "we" is the right word, if only because of its insistent appeal to a certain basic morality. There is an optimism in the word which moves me, Jeremy, though I'm sympathetic to the very real problems you mention in trying to pressure the word into being anything in particular...

I think the sad truth of the matter is that many people are full of all kinds of prejudice which they cannot really indulge in outright, but is perhaps somewhat altered or suppressed. As a result of this there is the frequent phenomenon of a kind of self-righteous delight in the misfortune of others (belonging to certain groups) for reasons which have absolutely nothing to do with those people as individuals. I'm certainly not saying all complacency takes this form, however: there is probably simply a very large amount of tunnel vision from unbelievably focused / self-centred people.

As an aside, whose brilliant idea was it to hold a tennis tournament in the middle of a sweltering desert? And what do they expect the dress code for these women athletes to be?

Reply to Margaret Wells: Since the UAE has more liberal rules I bet the women will be dressed like regular tennis playing women. The problem isn't with dress; it's the fact that the WTA bowed down to the UAE's silly rules.

The WTA needs to be PUNISHED.