A sexual revolution -- women moving up in Iran

To continue the focus on women from the reading, I found this article posted on a non-profit news-source called Iran Focus**'s website.  The article itself is from the NY Times, but it details some basic developments from where the article left off.  Basically, the author presents an argument that a sexual revolution is imminent, because of the allowance for basic and advanced education for women.  The more that Iranian women are learning about and seeing in global culture the alternative to their situation, the more they are demanding equal legal rights.  In this article the debate doesn't seem to be centered on clothing, but rather on legal rights such as divorce.

Another article highlighted a case in which 8 women have been sentenced to death by stoning.  A lot of international attention has been focused on outlawing the practice of stoning to death those convicted of such crimes as adultery.  Amnesty International is a major player in this effort, where many Western nations have denounced this Iranian (Islamic) practice.

What is the role of the international community in such cases?  Is it another form of colonialism to enforce Western beliefs on an Islamic nation?  Although in this case it is considered a violation of human rights by most and thus widely denounced, how much can the international community interfere with/demand change in another country's practices?  Is wearing a veil violation of human rights?  Where do we draw the line on what we accept as tolerable practice of another culture?

**About Iran Focus

Iran Focus is a non-profit news service provider that focuses on events in Iran, Iraq and the Middle East. With a network of specialists and analysts of the region and correspondents and reporters in several countries, Iran Focus is able to provide fast and reliable news and analysis on the political, social and economic situation in the region.

Iranian Jews Refuse To Immigrate

Iran's Jews reject cash offer to move to Israel:

This guardian article explains that Israel's monetary incentive was not accepted by Iranian Jews as they refused the offer to be paid to move to Israel.

I found this incredibly interesting that Israel was offering money (up to 30,000 pounds for families) to try to get Persian Jews to move to Israel. This is an example of the extreme moves that are pulled by governments to make political statements by forcing migrations.

My immediate interpretation was that Israel's motives would be to get Iranian Jews to leave Iran as a testament against Iran's extremely anti-Israeli government. But, I am now wondering if the refusal of this offer from the Persian Jewish community reflects that this anti-Israeli (or not anti, but not pro) sentiment is taken in by the Persian jews, or if they are just refusing to give up their land and national identity. Any thoughts?