zlacker

>>mhb+(OP)
An iranian expat here. I have been following the news closely, mostly getting my data from my friends in Iran before the internet shutdown and after it was (sort of) lifted.

The death toll is way above this number, you have to consider the fact that Iran is a big country with many small cities, and in my city alone (which is very small and rarely has any protest going on) many people have died (i don’t have the exact numbers but it could be anywhere between 100 to 200) and when you put this into perspective you will understand that in scale of the entire country a lot of people have died.

I have heard that not only they killed people on the street but they have chased those who fled and killded them at their places or hidings, let alone the killing of the injured ones in hospitals.

It’s is a big tragedy and people are reluctant to talk about it because those who are committing this massacre are MUSLIMS and support PALESTINE so this is a moral dilemma for the left lovers! because they see Mullah’s regime as one of their biggest allies when it comes to attack West/Israel/Free market

It’s a shame that all those activist that would shred themselves for Palestine are absolutely quite about Iran

>>sepiso+M45
It’s very strange to go “why isn’t the left doing anything about this conflict when they cared so much about Palestine?”

My government doesn’t fund Iran.

>>noah_b+0d5
I think when westerners like myself notice the disparity in response amongst western progressives between the Palestinian and Iranian situations, they're talking more from a social lens than the geopolitical one.

A lot of my peers have been incredibly active on social media the last couple years supporting Palestinians. They've been mostly completely silent on Iran, the imbalance is notable.

>>joenot+dh5
What "imbalance"? It is disingenuous to equate the two political situations as the same:

1. Palestine is a settler-colony of Israel, where the Israeli-right currently in power is conducting a genocide of Palestinians in Gaza ( https://www.btselem.org/publications/202507_our_genocide ) while continuing to steal their land and deny them basic rights. ( https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/6/who-are-israeli-set... ). The oppressors and the victims are clear in the Israel - Palestine conflict, and thus it is easy to take a firm moral stand supporting one over the other.

2. What is happening in Iran is either (at best) a power struggle and violent conflict between two groups - the supporters of the Ayatollah and the supporters of the Shah (backed by the west), or (at worst) the start of a civil war. In this case, apart from sympathy for the victims of violence on both sides, it is hard to take a firm political stand for one side because both have a tainted record. (How The CIA Overthrew Iran's Democracy In 4 Days - https://www.npr.org/2019/01/31/690363402/how-the-cia-overthr... ). Note that these so-called "revolutionaries" in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal too went on a rampage when law and order collapsed there, looting killing and doing senseless destruction ultimately destabilising their whole country. (Now Bangladesh is conducting a farce "democratic" election that deliberately excludes a major political party, the Awami League, because the so called "revolutionaries" fear that they will not be able to defeat them electorally. Something similar happened in Ukraine too). When both sides choose violence to capture power, and are hell bent on excluding the "other" from any future "democratic" setup, who really is the one with the "democratic" values and the real victim?

There is no doubt in my mind that the stand of the west (US / UK) here is totally hypocritical (and morally repugnant) if you praise the opponents of Ayatollah as "freedom fighters", while with the same breath you denounce the Palestinians as "terrorists" for daring to fight their Israeli colonial masters for freedom!

>>thisis+FK5
> The oppressors and the victim are clear in the Israel - Palestine conflict

Only if you zoom in and focus on one tiny sliver. If you look at the bigger picture, Israel is surrounded by dozens of countries 100s of times its size, that have all been ethnically cleansed of Jews, many of them in different stages of open or proxy war with Israel, militarily or politically.

>>midlan+1T5
Unlike the west, the Arabs or Persians have never nurtured any hatred of Jews till the British (and later the Americans) forcefully backed the creation of a Jewish state in the middle-east. Even today, muslims around the world don't give a damn about Jews or antisemitism unless it is in the context of Palestinians. This is in stark contrast to the christian west, which still harbours a lot of antisemitism and is the factory that still generates most of the modern Jewish conspiracy political tropes (some of which do find their way to religious fundamentalists in the east too). The Israeli-right, ofcourse, has a vested interest in painting Arabs and muslims as antisemites, because otherwise "Israel" can't showcase itself as a "victim". I do believe the Israelis are victims too though not in the way the Israeli-right depicts it - early Zionists never realised that the bigger plan of the western superpowers in forcing them to the middle-east (instead of giving them their own country in Europe) was part of their "divide and rule" policy for the middle-east. Frankly, Israel and Palestine will never be at peace because it is not in the interest of western superpowers. (The Israeli-right have latched on to this too, and are trying to exploit it to increase their own power and influence in the region. Unfortunately for them, that is undesirable for the west and worse, they did it in a way that brings unwanted attention to the west - the Trump and Blair lead Board of Peace is the western response to cut Israel down to size, in the coming future).

>>thisis+sX5
There was plenty of oppression against Jewish people in the Middle East before Israel became a country. Blame whomever you want, but the Jewish populations there were targeted for discriminatory taxation and various other forms of oppression.

>>nickff+L16
The Jizya tax on non-muslims in many Islamic empires was never a "discriminatory" tax. This is a common anti-muslim trope and an example of distorting history by considering it through modern political lens. In most muslim empires, this tax was only imposed on non-muslims who wanted to be exempt from serving in the military but still be a citizen of the Islamic empire they were part of. Those who chose to join military service were exempted from payment. Only free adult, non-muslim males were required to pay it and women, children, elders, the disabled, the insane, religious workers, hermits, slaves etc. were exempt. Some muslim rulers also exempted the poor amongst the non-muslims from paying it.

Muslims weren't required to pay a similar tax to the government because they were already obligated by their religion to pay a certain percentage of their wealth every year towards charity (Zakat).

This trope was popularised as part of the "divide and rule" policy of the British to generate animosity between muslims and non-muslims in many a British colony and today is commonly spouted in the anti-muslim tirades of many a right-wing religious fundamentalists.

>>thisis+Kl6
There were a variety of other discriminatory measures in most of the Middle-East; many applied to religions other than Judaism as well. Another notable one was the limited access to the legal systems, along with the inferior legal status non-Muslims were relegated to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Arab_world

I also think it’s absurd to pretend that taxing people who do not tithe to one’s favored faith or cause is non-discriminatory. Imagine Utah taxing non-Mormons because they don’t tithe to The Church or The United Way.

>>nickff+6q6
I have no idea what country's legal system you referring to. My broad understanding is that most Islamic empires allowed the minorities to retain their own personal laws on some legal matters (marriage, divorce, inheritance etc) as Sharia laws were largely Islamic, for muslims. From today's modern perspective many things that was done by many former empires of the past would be problematic. Like I said, you will only get a warped view of history if you try to analyse it by applying modern principles. By and large, for their time, Islamic empires were largely egalitarian towards their citizens. (The Ottoman empire's secular history undermines sharia claims - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/oct/07... ). If you want to judge them by their worst examples, you can ofcourse "prove" the worst that you imagine of them.

> Imagine Utah taxing non-Mormons because they don’t tithe

Mormons don't pay their tithe to the government. In the Islamic empire, it was the government that collected the 'tithe' from the muslims after calculating their wealth. So you can imagine how disgruntled muslim citizens would have been, every year, when the tax collector only came to collect money from them and not from the non-muslims. It was this kind of social unrest that lead to the imposition of the Jizya on non-muslims.

>>thisis+cC6
From the linked Wiki: “Restrictions included residency in segregated quarters, obligation to wear distinctive clothing, public subservience to Muslims, prohibitions against proselytizing and against marrying Muslim women, and limited access to the legal system (the testimony of a Jew did not count if contradicted by that of a Muslim). Dhimmi had to pay a special poll tax (the jizya), which exempted them from military service, and also from payment of the zakat alms tax required of Muslims.”