“We do not advocate an Israeli attack on Iran, nor will we endorse it or take political responsibility for it. But if the Israeli airforce attempts to stop Iran developing the capacity to wipe it out with a nuclear bomb, in the name of what alternative would we condemn Israel?”
This last question as it is not answered seems pretty rhetorical. He lists ten reasons not to oppose an attack and NO reason to condemn it. He then writes-
“The harsh truth is that there is good reason for Israel to make a precipitate strike at Iranian nuclear capacity.
Socialists should not want that and can not support it. Our point of view is not that of Israeli or any other nationalism. We want Israeli, Palestinian, Iranian and other workers to unite and fight for a socialist Middle East.
However, least of all should we back Ahmedinejad, or argue, implicitly or openly, that homicidal religious lunatics have a right to arm themselves with nuclear weapons — and that those they say they want to destroy should be condemned for refusing to stand idly by while they arm themselves to do the job.”
It says we do not want and can not support an attack but it also refuses to condemn. It is in no means a strident opposition to such an attack but entirely equivocal.
Another AWL supporter, Duncan, did write:
"I'm not suggesting the Israeli working class asks their ruling
class to carry out a limited nuclear strike against Iran. Yet again, I
do not support a nuclear strike against Iran by the Israeli government.
I simply will not condemn it."
Though this was corrected to:
Obviously a typo due to haste, what I should have written is "I'm not suggesting the Israeli working class asks their ruling class to carry out a limited nuclear strike against Iran. Yet again, I do not even support a strike against Iran to take out their nuclear capabilities by the Israeli government. I simply will not condemn it."