Is Iran coming in from the cold?

[Formaldehyde]

You have in the past.

Then you misunderstood what I stated since I did no such thing. But others certainly have. From the URL I posted previously:

The analogy has been used by scholars, United Nations investigators, human rights groups and critics of Israeli policy, some of which have also accused Israel of committing the crime of apartheid.[2][3] Critics of Israeli policy say that "a system of control" in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, including Jewish-only settlements, the ID system, separate roads for Israeli and Palestinian citizens, military checkpoints, discriminatory marriage law, the West Bank barrier, use of Palestinians as cheap labour, Palestinian West Bank enclaves, inequities in infrastructure, legal rights, and access to land and resources between Palestinians and Israeli residents in the Israeli-occupied territories resembles some aspects of the South African apartheid regime, and that elements of Israel's occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid, which are contrary to international law.[4] Some commentators extend the analogy, or accusation, to include Arab citizens of Israel, describing their citizenship status as second-class.[12]

In 1961, the South African prime minister, and the architect of South Africa's apartheid policies, Hendrik Verwoerd, dismissed an Israeli vote against South African apartheid at the United Nations, saying that "Israel is not consistent in its new anti-apartheid attitude... they took Israel away from the Arabs after the Arabs lived there for a thousand years. In that, I agree with them. Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state."[22] Since then, a number of sources have used the apartheid analogy in their examination of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In 1967, after the Six Days War, David Ben-Gurion stated that unless Israel managed to 'rid itself of the territories and their Arab population as soon as possible,' it would become an apartheid state.[23] In the early 1970s, Arabic language magazines of the PLO and PFLP compared the Israeli proposals for a Palestinian autonomy to the Bantustan strategy of South Africa.[22] In 1979 the Palestinian sociologist Elia Zureik argued that while not de jure an apartheid state, Israeli society was characterized by a latent form of apartheid.[24] The analogy emerged with some frequency in both academic and activist writings in the 1980-90s,[25] when Uri Davis, Meron Benvenisti, Richard Locke and Anthony Stewart employed the analogy to describe Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. In the 1990s, the analogy has gained prominence, after Israel, as a result of the Oslo Accords, granted the Palestinians limited self-government in form the Palestinian Authority, and established a system of permits and checkpoints in the Palestinian Territories. The analogy has gained additional traction following Israel's construction of the West Bank Barrier.[22] By 2013 the analogy between the West Bank and Bantustans of apartheid-era South Africa was widely drawn in international circles.[26] Also in the United States, where the notion had previously been taboo, Israel's rule over the occupied territories was increasingly compared to apartheid.[27]

This helps explain why no comparison is necessary.

The question is not "Is Israel the same as South Africa?"
It is "do Israel's actions meet the international definition of what apartheid is?"

The crime of apartheid is defined by the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as inhumane acts of a character similar to other crimes against humanity "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."

A brief overview of apartheid in the only democracy in the Middle East:

Right of return for Jews only
Palestinians are denied the right to return to homes and lands that have been taken from them in Israel, while a person with one Jewish grandparent anywhere in the world can settle on that same land.

Limits on Palestinian growth
Since 1948, scores of new communities have been founded for Jews, but very few for Palestinians, causing severe residential overcrowding.

Unequal funding for Palestinian towns
Palestinian towns and villages in Israel do not receive the same funding as Jewish towns, even though taxation rates are equal for Palestinians and Jews.

Limits on land leased to Palestinians
Until recently, Palestinians were not permitted to lease land from the Israeli Land Administration, which controls 93% of the land in Israel.

Unrecognized Palestinian villages denied basic services
Many Palestinian villages, some predating the State of Israel, are unrecognized by the government, and thus receive no running water, electricity, or access roads.

Destruction of unrecognized Palestinian villages
The Bedouin citizens residing in the unrecognized villages of the Negev have for many years suffered from severe discrimination and marginalization.

Unequal application of the law to Jews and non-Jews
A dual system of law discriminates between Jewish Israelis and indigenous Palestinians based on a constructed status of "Jewish nationality."

No constitutional protection for minorities
Israel openly declares itself "a state of the Jewish people" yet has no constitution to protect the rights of the 24.5% of its citizens who are non-Jewish.

Unequal funding for Palestinian education
There are separate and inferior school systems for Palestinians inside Israel.

Restricted access to good jobs for Palestinians
Service in the Israeli army is a prerequisite for the best private and public sector jobs.

Confiscation of Palestinian land for Jewish use
Land is confiscated from Palestinian villages and made available for Jewish use.

Poisoning, uprooting of Bedouin Israeli citizens’ crops
The government of Israel has sent planes to spread poison on Bedouin crops.

Discrimination in public places
Palestinian citizens of Israel are often discriminated against through denial of access to recreation spaces.

Israeli anthem discriminates
Israelis who are Muslim or Christian must extol the Jewish spirit when singing Israel’s national anthem.

Israeli flag discriminates
The flag of Israel displays the religious symbol of Judaism, though nearly one-quarter of its citizens are Christian or Muslim.

House demolitions
In 2007, 759 Palestinian homes were destroyed inside Israel.

Denial of family unification for Arabs
In 2003, the Israeli Knesset enacted legislation that denies any possibility of residency status for Palestinians from the West Bank or Gaza who are married to Israeli citizens.

Failure to protect Palestinian citizens during wartime
Almost all Palestinian towns and villages in northern Israel lack public bomb shelters.

Unequal compensation for Palestinian citizens for war damages
After the Lebanon war, Palestinian villages were denied compensation for damages.

Discrimination at airports and train stations
Palestinians are frequently taken aside at Israel’s airports and train stations and searched, often invasively.

Government leaders talk openly of expelling Arabs from Israel
Christians have lived in the land that became Israel for 2000 years, Muslims for more than 1300 years. Now these citizens are referred to as a demographic threat, or "the Arab Problem."

Palestinian history and Israel’s borders removed from textbooks
Teachers are not allowed to teach students in public schools about Palestinian history.

 

[caketastydelish]

Apart-from-hiding from the main discussion here, you have yet to change my mind on this.

Anyway, the key difference is Iranians have actually (recently) risen up in the streets and overwhelmingly demonstrated that they hate their regime. I have not seen Saudi Arabians do the same though I'd love to be proven wrong.

Military action would be wrong because all it would do is make the Iranian people (believe it or not a lot of Iranian people... and yes by that I mean Iranians actually living in Iran actually like the USA) turn against America which would be an unnecessary move to say the least. They hate their regime and we are at least giving the mullahs the middle finger without actually bombing the country, which is perfect.

Not much doubt in my mind that the American government is doing this for different reasons than my personal motivations, but that doesn't change the fact that I'm happy with what I believe will be the end result.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Apart-from-hiding from the main discussion here, you have yet to change my mind on this.

The light bulb has to want to change.

Anyway, the key difference is Iranians have actually (recently) risen up in the streets and overwhelmingly demonstrated that they hate their regime. I have not seen Saudi Arabians do the same though I'd love to be proven wrong.

Only as I have demonstrate in numerous threads on this very same topic in the past, the polls have shown that the majority of Iranians "actually" support their current government. And they continue to blame the US for the sanctions, not their own government.

A recent Gallup poll shows that 63% of Iranians think their government should continue its efforts to develop nuclear capabilities — even though more than eight out of 10 say their personal livelihoods have been hurt by the West’s sanctions. At the same time, 47% of the poll’s respondents primarily blame the United States for the penalties Iran faces. In comparison, one in 10 point the finger at their own government. The poll, which was conducted between Dec. 26 and Jan. 10, bases its results on telephone interviews with 1,000 adults throughout Iran.

Iranians Feel Bite of Sanctions, Blame U.S., Not Own Leaders

If you really want Iran to eventually have a secular democracy again as they did 60 years ago, you should be completely opposed to the US government continuing to try to interfere in their internal affairs.

 

[caketastydelish]

The light bulb has to want to change.

Before:

After:

Well obviously the US is 'responsible' for the sanctions. However many of them may think that's an inherently good thing, as I do.

It is also worth pointing out that they may simply be afraid that their phones are tapped by the government when Gallup conducts these polls (which is likely to be the truth) so they give a BS answer so they won't be arrested from really speaking their mind.

Most Iranians liked Obama's stance during the uprising a few years back, I myself am one of them.

However I do agree that our motivation for opposing the Iranian government should be from a human rights point of view, not from a 'whatever is good for Israel' point of view.

also let's say you're the typical Iranian woman for example. Sanctions from a country halfway across the world, even if they're a superpower while as annoying as that is to you as it would affect you on a personal level, is nothing compared to fear of being raped and/or stoned to death, with nothing but maybe celebration for those that did it to you.

They may be annoyed with the US, but while the US is simply annoying, their own government is a monster.

 

[Lord Baal]

Unfortunately, caketastydelish, santions don't work. There is not a single case, to my knowledge, of economic sanctions working to either change or soften a regime in the modern period. If sanctions are combined with support for rebels or even something as relatively non-violent as funding opposition parties, it has been known to have positive effects for the interfering power; the fall of the Sandinistas is an example. But, as Cuba has proven for more than fifty years, sanctions by themselves do not work.

The only ways to change the Iranian regime are to destroy it or convince it to moderate its behaviour, and it can't be convinced to moderate its behaviour if you won't negotiate with it. As I said, enlargement has been shown to work in the past, notably in South Korea, but also several of the former Yugoslav states. Since a military solution to the Iranian issue is untenable, enlargement is the best option.

 

[Tahuti]

Unfortunately, caketastydelish, santions don't work. There is not a single case, to my knowledge, of economic sanctions working to either change or soften a regime in the modern period. If sanctions are combined with support for rebels or even something as relatively non-violent as funding opposition parties, it has been known to have positive effects for the interfering power; the fall of the Sandinistas is an example. But, as Cuba has proven for more than fifty years, sanctions by themselves do not work.

I disagree. The sanctions against the Apartheid regime worked, and it was because it severely curtailed Afrikaner business interests. In other words, part of the elite that brought the Apartheid to power had no interest in maintaining it any longer. Likewise, the Chinese Communist Party would probably significantly weakened if not totally destroyed, should sanctions be applied on the PRC on an immediate basis (which naturally won't happen though, since the West itself has too many interests in China).

However, most dictatorships, Iran and Cuba included, have adopted protectionist policies designed to maintain economic independence from most of the world as much as possible (and to all protectionism advocates: This is the only thing protectionism has been ever good for). Which is why I agree with you that sanctions have never worked against these countries, and will never work. Sanctions can only succeed when the political powers that be rely on foreign business interests or rely on business interests with stakes abroad. However, the Islamic republic and Cuba kicked out all such business interests, which essentially secured the existence of these regimes. North Korea can NEVER, EVER be punished by sanctions, due to their economic autarchy. Economic sanctions are however highly effective against capitalist dictatorships, like modern day China, Apartheid South Africa and Pinochetist Chile, since sanctions against such countries easily sway business interests into aiding in overthrowing the regime.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Well obviously the US is 'responsible' for the sanctions. However many of them may think that's an inherently good thing, as I do.

What evidence do you offer that this is true?

It is also worth pointing out that they may simply be afraid that their phones are tapped by the government when Gallup conducts these polls (which is likely to be the truth) so they give a BS answer so they won't be arrested from really speaking their mind.

What about the 10% who blamed their own government? Do you think they are now being arrested in the middle of the night to never be heard from again?

You really don't seem to have any idea how much freedom and liberty the people of Iran continue to enjoy when compared to authoritarian governments which are far worse.


Link to video.

Not only do women drive cars in Iran, some of them are even race and rally car drivers.

Most Iranians liked Obama's stance during the uprising a few years back, I myself am one of them.

Which stance was that? You continue to make statements like this without any evidence they are true. And you are apparently not an Iranian except by ancestry. Do you have citizenship in this country? How much time have you spent there?

However I do agree that our motivation for opposing the Iranian government should be from a human rights point of view, not from a 'whatever is good for Israel' point of view.

That is exactly what I am referring. They should indeed be criticized for that just like all the other countries which are far worse. But from that perspective Iran is simply nowhere near as bad as a number of our allies, such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. You can't very well advocate that economic sanctions be continued on that basis while ignoring the countries which are far worse.

 

[Berzerker]

I knew Iranians back in LA a few decades ago, good people but a bit hot-headed for a mellow soul like me

I wish, cant talk Jesus into helping in that department

oh yeah, my friend was a good skier. He said they had great skiing in Iran, plenty of slopes and altitude.

 

[caketastydelish]

Well congrats Formaldehyde. Despite having a Persian father and family and having doing extensive reading about my own heritage, you officially know more about it than me just because you posted a few pictures.

I feel very stupid now.

 

[Lord Baal]

I disagree. The sanctions against the Apartheid regime worked, and it was because it severely curtailed Afrikaner business interests. In other words, part of the elite that brought the Apartheid to power had no interest in maintaining it any longer.

Apartheid was destroyed far more by the domestic upheavals in South Africa itself than the external economic sanctions. By exploiting Namibia and trading with friendly countries like Australia and Israel, South Africa was able to avoid many of the problems of sanctions. Sanctions did indeed play a part, but diplomatic pressure and internal economic issues played far more.

Those same Afrikaaner businessmen needed new sources of labour from outside South Africa, and without becoming friendlier with its neighbours SA could no longer get access to their citizens. The days of black Africans crossing the border to work in South Africa ended during the 1980s, and Namibia was finally drying up after decades of exploitation.

They also found it difficult to deal with the outside world, not due to sanctions - successive US governments had outright encouraged investment in South Africa - but due to the bad press that dealing with South Africans would give to Western businesses. The government tried keeping a lid on the press first, and only resorted to reform when that proved ineffective.

Likewise, the Chinese Communist Party would probably significantly weakened if not totally destroyed, should sanctions be applied on the PRC on an immediate basis (which naturally won't happen though, since the West itself has too many interests in China).

On the contrary, if sanctions were placed on China tomorrow the CCP would survive by pinning the blame on the US and becoming more aggressive. The sanctions would do a very good job of destroying the US though.

However, most dictatorships, Iran and Cuba included, have adopted protectionist policies designed to maintain economic independence from most of the world as much as possible (and to all protectionism advocates: This is the only thing protectionism has been ever good for). Which is why I agree with you that sanctions have never worked against these countries, and will never work. Sanctions can only succeed when the political powers that be rely on foreign business interests or rely on business interests with stakes abroad. However, the Islamic republic and Cuba kicked out all such business interests, which essentially secured the existence of these regimes. North Korea can NEVER, EVER be punished by sanctions, due to their economic autarchy. Economic sanctions are however highly effective against capitalist dictatorships, like modern day China, Apartheid South Africa and Pinochetist Chile, since sanctions against such countries easily sway business interests into aiding in overthrowing the regime.

When was Pinochet ever sanctioned? He was ousted by his own arrogance, not any external issues; the murderous nutter legitimately thought he could hold free elections and people would actually vote for him. The same thing happened in Myanmar, except there the junta decided to disregard the results, whereas Pinochet relied on US support too much to do that without losing it.

 

[Tahuti]

Apartheid was destroyed far more by the domestic upheavals in South Africa itself than the external economic sanctions.

Regimes never fall to popular discontent alone. Part of the elite actually has to withdraw their support to the regime in order to punish it. In South Africa's case, this wouldn't have happened until the economy suffers.

They also found it difficult to deal with the outside world, not due to sanctions - successive US governments had outright encouraged investment in South Africa - but due to the bad press that dealing with South Africans would give to Western businesses. The government tried keeping a lid on the press first, and only resorted to reform when that proved ineffective.

Effectively sanctions, and by no means unimportant.

On the contrary, if sanctions were placed on China tomorrow the CCP would survive by pinning the blame on the US and becoming more aggressive. The sanctions would do a very good job of destroying the US though.

I agree it would severely hurt the US (though not destroy it) but likewise, China would be hard hit even more as well. It would certainly end China's economic boom, on which the CCP depends on for political legitimacy. Any sanctions would be a death sentence for the Chinese regime. The US on the other hand could reshore its manufacturing base and suffer another big recession on the way, which is hardly a big deal anyway.

When was Pinochet ever sanctioned? He was ousted by his own arrogance, not any external issues; the murderous nutter legitimately thought he could hold free elections and people would actually vote for him. The same thing happened in Myanmar, except there the junta decided to disregard the results, whereas Pinochet relied on US support too much to do that without losing it.

I mentioned Pinochet as an example of a target for whom sanctions can be highly effective, and not necessarily as a target of sanctions at all. However, being murderous doesn't prevent you from being elected in a democracy. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, Rwanda quite recently had its own Pinochet, and Suriname elected Desi Bouterse (who in the part ruled as military dictator and executed large amounts of political opponents).

 

[Lord Baal]

Regimes never fall to popular discontent alone. Part of the elite actually has to withdraw their support to the regime in order to punish it. In South Africa's case, this wouldn't have happened until the economy suffers.

That's going a little too far. Regimes rarely fall solely due to popular discontent, but it has been known to happen. Marcos in the Philippines, for example. And elites rarely abandon the regime they support unless there's enough discontent to sway their own opinion.

Effectively sanctions, and by no means unimportant.

Negative public opinion hardly counts as a sanction. One might as well say that Wayne Enterprises 'sanctioned' LSI Holdings in The Dark Knight.

I agree it would severely hurt the US (though not destroy it) but likewise, China would be hard hit even more as well. It would certainly end China's economic boom, on which the CCP depends on for political legitimacy. Any sanctions would be a death sentence for the Chinese regime. The US on the other hand could reshore its manufacturing base and suffer another big recession on the way, which is hardly a big deal anyway.

Personally, I think they'd both be screwed.

I mentioned Pinochet as an example of a target for whom sanctions can be highly effective, and not necessarily as a target of sanctions at all. However, being murderous doesn't prevent you from being elected in a democracy. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, Rwanda quite recently had its own Pinochet, and Suriname elected Desi Bouterse (who in the part ruled as military dictator and executed large amounts of political opponents).

It was economic sanctions against Chile that largely brought Pinochet to power in the first place. Obviously being murderous can be good for a democratically elected leader. He just has to kill everyone that might vote against him. Worked for Suharto as well.

 

[Tahuti]

That's going a little too far. Regimes rarely fall solely due to popular discontent, but it has been known to happen. Marcos in the Philippines, for example. And elites rarely abandon the regime they support unless there's enough discontent to sway their own opinion.

Elites stop supporting regimes when there is no interest to do so any more, and popular discontent can only succeed in overthrowing a dictatorship if the establishment aids them in doing so, which includes the Marcos regime. For another example, the Egyptian army overthrew Mubarak and then Morsy due to the fact protests were severely hurting the economy and the army is a major stakeholder in a large amount and variety of Egyptian businesses. They will overthrow any Egyptian leader again, democratically elected or not, if he causes such riots again.

 

[Cutlass]

On the contrary, if sanctions were placed on China tomorrow the CCP would survive by pinning the blame on the US and becoming more aggressive. The sanctions would do a very good job of destroying the US though.

The US doesn't need China for anything. Countries are lining up to sell us everything we buy from China.

 

[Ajidica]

I don't know enough about prior Iranian presidents like Rafsanjani, but is Rouhani actually a moderate, or have we been conditioned to view a conservative as moderate after the antics of Ahmedinijad?

 

[Tahuti]

I don't know enough about prior Iranian presidents like Rafsanjani, but is Rouhani actually a moderate, or have we been conditioned to view a conservative as moderate after the antics of Ahmedinijad?

Rowhani is a conservative but as moderate as we are ever going to get from Iran. Ahmadinejad was a total reactionary nut, but a conservative for Iranian standards.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Well congrats Formaldehyde. Despite having a Persian father and family and having doing extensive reading about my own heritage, you officially know more about it than me just because you posted a few pictures.

I feel very stupid now.

Again, my point is that Iran is nowhere near as bad as other countries which we do not sanction on the basis of human rights. You apparently don't have a rebuttal, so you decided to resort to an absurd personal attack instead.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

Again, my point is that Iran is nowhere near as bad as other countries which we do not sanction on the basis of human rights. You apparently don't have a rebuttal, so you decided to resort to an absurd personal attack instead.

Are you saying that the reasoning behind the sanctions is moral...?

 

[Formaldehyde]

How could you possibly get that from the comments I have made?

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

Again, my point is that Iran is nowhere near as bad as other countries which we do not sanction on the basis of human rights.

Isn't that your point?