A Double Standard: Alicia Keys And Sanctions On Iran

[Purveyor]

There seems to be a bit of a double standard in this country on the subject of BDS. For instance, we’re all supposed to be sneering in triumph over Alicia Keys’ decision to resist calls to cancel her Tel Aviv concert next month. No sane Israeli can support a boycott of this country, can he? Over what, the occupation? Out of the question.

But at the same time, no sane Israeli is supposed to oppose the UN sanctions on Iran, unless of course he thinks they’re too lenient or that they’re delaying the bombing of that country. For an Israeli to say he’s against the sanctions because they’re immoral, because they harm masses of innocent people – who’s ever heard of such a thing?

This is the Israeli mentality: Sanctions that cause massive, life-threatening medical and food shortages to the citizens of an enemy country are great, but a boycott that denies Alicia Keys’ local fans the chance to see her is evil. (I know the callousness toward the effect of the Iran sanctions isn’t limited to Israel, but that callousness combined with the steaming outrage over the merest symbolic boycott of this country – the stone-blind hypocrisy of that reaction – is what makes it distinctively Israeli.)

People will say: How can you compare sanctions on Iran to a boycott on Israel – Iran is a totalitarian, nightmarish country, an Islamic police state. That’s true, but that’s not why the sanctions are in place – they’re in place because Iran is en route to getting nuclear weapons, and the nuclear powers on the UN Security Council (egged on by Israel) do not have the right to wreak hell on the lives of Iranians because their regime wants a few nukes, too. Also, while Iran is a monstrous country for anyone who doesn’t toe the mullahs’ line, an incomparably worse violator of human rights than Israel, that doesn’t mean Israel is good, or morally immune from boycotts.

Let’s take a closer look at the effect of sanctions on Iran. From The Guardian in January:

MORE...

http://972mag.com/a-double-standard-alicia-keys-and-sanctions-on-iran/72623/

[azurnoir]

1. apparently the lives of Iranians are worth less than a concert ticket in Tel Aviv

from the article

Hundreds of thousands of Iranians with serious illnesses have been put at imminent risk by the unintended consequences of international sanctions, which have led to dire shortages of life-saving medicines such as chemotherapy drugs for cancer and bloodclotting agents for haemophiliacs.

albeit I question the "unintended" part

[oberliner]

2. The best of Larry Derfner

He really nailed this one!

I mean, I'm sure Iran would love to play sports with Israel. Allow visitors from Israel. If only not for those sanctions!

[azurnoir]

3. it seems you missed the point

the sanctions on Iran are harming innocent people, putting their lives at risk via medication shortages among other things
, where as we right now have a thread with 140+comments that is in reality a gossip rag type character assassination of Alice Walker for asking Alicia Keys to not preform in Israel, not once however have I really seen the sanctions on Iran questioned or the fact that create suffering among the civilian populace, that so many of the 'Progressives' here claim to support, but not so much as a blink about the real consequences on the lives of the innocent in Iran or thye effectivness of the sanctions themselves. This is in no small part because it has been catapulted to the public for years tthat sanctions are preferable to what is apparently the only other way to deal with Iran, which is war

[oberliner]

4. They wouldn't accept medication from Israel

They wouldn't accept help from Israel for various natural disasters, such as earthquakes.

They want nothing to do with any assistance from Israel.

[azurnoir]

5. So Israel offered and is the only source?

or the only source permitted by the sanctions?

[Mosby]

13. there wouldn't be any sanctions if iran would comply with IAEA requests.

It's really that simple, I don't understand why so many here want to defend Iran's quest for nukes.

At least Derfner is being honest and admitting that its about nukes not energy, so that's progress I guess.

[delrem]

14. No hypocrisy here, folks. Move on, now.

[azurnoir]

18. I question the validity of the sanctions due to their effect on the civilian population of Iran

why do you defend cancer patients in Iran dying because of what their government does?

[oberliner]

19. "why do you defend cancer patients in Iran dying"

That's a Sean Hannity style question if ever I saw one.

[azurnoir]

20. It was a reflection of a statement made to me

but I guess that's 'different'

[oberliner]

21. Which statement?

I can't find it. Little help?

[azurnoir]

22. The one I posted in reply too

there wouldn't be any sanctions if iran would comply with iaea requests.


Its really that simple, I don't understand why so many here want to defend Iran's quest for nukes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=42643

[oberliner]

23. OK - that's what I thought

I don't see the statements as equivalent.

I mean, do you not think Iran has the right to pursue nuclear technology?

[azurnoir]

24. once again-I do not think that questioning the validity of sanctions

equates to supporting what we are told is Iran's quest for nuclear weapons

[oberliner]

25. Fair enough

Reasonable point.

[Mosby]

27. President Obama seems to think the sanctions are reasonable

I'm going to go with his judgement.

[azurnoir]

28. ya know what I do not depend on the judgement of others no matter who they are

to form my own opinions

[Mosby]

29. so you're OK with a theocratic dictatorship obtaining nukes?

Or do you just have issues with the sanctions?

[azurnoir]

32. if the sanctions are aimed at keeping the government from developing nuclear capabitity

for what ever reasons then they are not really working all too well are they?

[oberliner]

30. Not even if they write for Wikipedia or 972mag?

Let's be honest now.

[azurnoir]

31. I use them as examples but I do not form my opinion from them

some of us are indeed capable of thinking independently

[aranthus]

6. It's not a double standard if you tell the truth.

It would be nice if Derfner was doing that, but he isn't. The BDS movement is about ending the Jewish state. The sanctions against Iran are about preventing an extremist regime from obtaining nuclear weapons. They are two very different actions, so of course the response to them is different. Demanding and enforcing Right of Return is heinous. Keeping Iran from having nuclear weapons is not.

[azurnoir]

7. Actually if you bother to read the article Derfner addresses what you've said

and to belabor a point where BDS is concerned few that support it actually aim to end Israel as such, more like the aim is to stymie Greater Israel, the growth of Israel via the militarily conquered lands in the West Bank, but don't let reality stop you

[aranthus]

8. No he doesn't.

I have read the article three times, and I suggest that you read it carefully. What Derfner addresses is the "claim" that Iran is monstrous, and Israel isn't, as justification for the supposed double standard. Except that's a fake issue, he's made up to avoid the real issue. He does not address the real issue that BDS is per se monstrous and a fraud, and that the sanctions on Iran are not. We've been over this several times and you are just in denial, but I will say it again. It doesn't matter how many Western intellectuals, artists, college students, etc., think that all they are doing is opposing the Occupation. That's what the Palestinians want them to think. The people who are driving the train are the Palestinian organizers of the BDS movement. It's their movement. At least have enough respect for them to accept that what they say about their movement is what it is.

[azurnoir]

9. Right here

BOOZ, I wrote in “A Zionist defense of Hawking” (and elsewhere) that I have serious problems w/the BDS movement. By supporting Hawking’s boycott, or one by Keys, doesn’t mean I support the BDS movement in full – I understand that it’s riddled with sheer hatred of Israel. I would love to be able to oppose boycotts because Israel was moving toward an end of the occupation, or because the U.S. was forcing it to do – but that’s not happening. Nobody and nothing is pushing Israel to give up the occupation. So the choice is this: Support BDS actions on a case-by-case basis and accept being “soiled,” or opposed it completely and support only those action that are uncorrupted by Israel-hatred – i.e. NONE – and thereby have no effect on the status quo while standing against the only things that do. Given that choice, I prefer to get a little dirty.

[aranthus]

10. That's in the comments, not in the article.

And what he's really saying is that since he can't join onto a movement that would do some good (because of the reality that the other side isn't actually intending good), that he'll join onto a movement that is intended to do something bad, because at least that's doing something. Why not consider the possibility that since the other side isn't intending good, that maybe the Israelis aren't totally to blame, and that there shouldn't be any boycott in the first place? What's going on here is his frustration with the status quo, not a reasonable analysis of why the status quo is so frustrating.

[azurnoir]

11. The comment are part of the article I'm sorry you chose not to read them

Israel as the party holding the power to choose whether or not continue the occupation and settlements in the West Bank is indeed the responsible party here, there is or should be no question about that, you can spin make excuses till the cows come home but once they are back in their stalls the truth remains the occupation and settlement project continue because Israel wants them to-period

the hysterical claim that BDS wants to destroy Israel is also untrue, some in the BDS movement want 1 state, it is that claim the end of the artificially created and maintained majority in Israel proper that could end nothing more-Israel would remain albeit changed much like the US was changed after the civil rights movement and South Africa was changed after apartheid ended and yes we heard the same iyt will destroy us hysteria about those 2 items too

[aranthus]

12. No they aren't.

They are comments to the article. Now I at least understand your logic, or lack thereof. Further illogic on your part, is to suggest that Israel, being the powerful party, is also the responsible party. That isn't true. Might may not make right, but it also doesn't make wrong.

The claim that BDS is about the destruction of Israel is neither hysterical nor false. It is what the movement says that it is. The fact that some, or even most of the participants in the West only join the movement to end the Occupation means nothing as far as what the movement is about. Useful idiots don't get to drive the train. All they get to do is shovel coal. ending the Jewish state means ending Israel. But you support that, so it's no wonder that you defend BDS against it.

[azurnoir]

15. you've read what Derfner said now I realize there isa comfort in wrapping yourself

in the most extreme interpretations possible, sort of like some that believe that all of Israel is just like Moshe Feiglin but Derfner spoke for most who follow BDS, it is not the what is interpreted as the destruction of Israel that is the desired outcome and your rather insulting need to call those that do not fall in line with your beliefs 'useful idiots' does not really help your case much but do wrap yourself in such proclamations,it albeit IMO it is sad and telling that someone in the 21rst century is promoting a state that is meant for only one of it's numerous ethnic groups that too speaks for itself

[aranthus]

16. Yes, and I've explained why it stinks.

So far all you've managed is denial and denigration of the Palestinians who started BDS. The reasons that people join BDS don't define the movement. It's the Palestinians' movement, not theirs. So the fact that some or most BDSers say that they only want an end to the Occupation simply doesn't count. In fact, my disgust is with the so obvious disconnect between what some people claim that they want, and what they have chosen to be a part of. But you know what it's really about, and you support that. I just want people to be honest about what they support.

[azurnoir]

17. I showed you the what most of the supporters of BDS are aiming for

this is not denigration it is truth and to state that the people who join BDS do not define the movement is nothing short of ridiculous, you say i"it doesn't count" simply because it does not suit your need, it does count because in a movement like BDS all it has is those that support it, and once a viable Palestinian State is established that support will wither, pure and simple You can mutter on and on about the destruction of Israel by the BDS movement as though it had some military capability of doing that, however that simply comes off as excuse making if not paranoia

what I think you truly fear is that BDS worked against South Africa (which BTW still exists) and could against Israel too, which will also still exist, even in the 'horrible' event that all of those living under its rule military or otherwise will have equal rights

[dlwickham]

26. what a bunch of crap

I don't think that the point is that Iran wants a few nukes, as if having one isn't bad enough

the point is what Iran is willing or wanting to do with those nukes

and I don't think it's just Israel that doesn't want Iran to possess nuclear weapons. I doubt that too many of its Arab neighbors are too crazy about the thought of them having nukes

[azurnoir]

33. and what is it that Iran is wanting to do with it's nukes ?

the ones it doesn't have

[dlwickham]

34. I'm sure they'd like to hit Israel with a nuke

makes getting rid of the nasty Zionists so much easier

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9104253955

Tehran's provisional Friday Prayers Leader Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami underlined the importance of this year's International Qods Day rallies, and said the revolutionary nations of the region are able to annihilate the Zionist regime.

"The nations of the region, which have toppled dictators, also have the power to annihilate the Zionist regime," Ayatollah Khatami told FNA on Monday.

He stressed that the spread of the Islamic Awakening in the region heralds annihilation of the Zionist regime, and said, "Severance of ties with the Zionist regime has been one of the primary causes and ideals of those countries in which a revolution has started, even though they may have not yet attained their goals."

http://www.jpost.com/Iranian-Threat/News/Khamenei-Zionist-regime-will-disappear-from-map

With the US sending clear public signals to Israel that it is opposed to military action now against Iran, and a cacophonous debate on the matter in Israel, senior Iranian officials continue to threaten Israel with destruction.

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Wednesday that he was confident "the fake Zionist (regime) will disappear from the landscape of geography,” Iran's Mehr News Agency reported.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/war-with-cancerous-tumor-israel-will-eventually-happen-says-iranian-general/?utm_source=The+Times+of+Israel+Daily+Edition&utm_campaign=81998aae6d-2012_09_22&utm_medium=email

The commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari, said Saturday that war with Israel will “eventually happen,” and that the Islamic Republic would “destroy the Jewish state.”

Speaking at a news conference in Tehran, Jafari said, “The war will eventually happen but it is not clear when and where it will take place,” according to the semi-official Fars news agency.

“This cancerous tumor Israel seeks to launch a war against us,” he said, and added, “right now they see war as the only method of confrontation.”

[azurnoir]

35. oddly though none of your very predictable links say Iran will nuke Israel do they?

what your links go on about is the common stuff about all Arab countries as a group attacking Israel, for me your links make very clear why the US is aiding the Syrian opposition, lets help em kill each other, keep all of Iran's allies in the region tied up and cry salty tears about the poor victims while we're at it too, gotta make it look good after all

in fact the nearest I've seen to Iran saying they would attack Israel was to say they would retaliate if Israel attacks them first but how dare they defend themselves, right?

all in all I support neither side in this word war or pSyrian proxy war what I do support is the millions of innocent victims of the power gamers

[dlwickham]

36. Iran has been responsible for some many deaths in the region and around the world

I doubt too many rational people would mind seeing their government taken out and replaced by one a bit more sane

If it's Israel that does it, good

[azurnoir]

37. so you thinkIsrael to "taking out" the Iranian government is good?

I would rather they get voted out, I know that doesn't have quite the visceral punch though does it?

[dlwickham]

38. good luck with that

Iran is a theocracy and all candidates have to be approved by the ruling religious leaders

the people have very few choices-someone who's conservative; someone who is just a little bit less conservative; someone who is more conservative

[azurnoir]

39. so take 'em out? really? How care to explain? n/t

[dlwickham]

40. prove to me that Iran only wants nuclear power for peaceful reasons

I'll throw the ball back in your court

Iran has a history of funding terrorist activities and demonstrating that they are willing to do whatever they think is okay to target their enemies

how much money and arms have they sent to terrorist groups that target Israel?

are they to be trusted with a means to build weapons that will truly meet their goal of destroying Israel?

[azurnoir]

41. I have said nothing about the purpose of Irans nuclear quest I asked you what you meant

exactly

[dlwickham]

42. I'm asking you now

[azurnoir]

43. once again please explain by what means are you suggesting the Iranian government be taken out?

I've asked you twice now and all you respond with is an attempt to distract and redirect

[Mosby]

44. IMO the only way to eliminate the regime

is through armed revolution.

I think the Iranian regime is to strong for it to be successful though.

[dlwickham]

45. the Irania government needs to be removed from power

not sure how much clearer you need that to be