Add new comment

Submitted by Jason on Mon, 22/09/2008 - 13:52

You say I blur matters. I don't think so. My main point is to say that it is not only possible to oppose imperialism without giving any support to the Iranian bourgeois - it is necessary. I'd have thought you'd agree with this. I suspect you do.

You say, "We oppose an Israeli attack on Iran. We are absolutely firm, absolutely clear and absolutely united on that."


Then you say, slightly confusingly, "What we object is the demand that we use the word "condemn" when such an attack has not happened yet and we do not know what the consequences will be."

This if anything seesm to blur the 'absolutely' of the previous sentence. If I oppose firmly and absolutely something then I am also for condemning it if it did happen. If Israel attacked Iran it would almost certainly involve deaths of Iranian workers. More than that though, even in the extremely (vanishingly small) unlikely event of no workers being killed, it would actually bolster the Iranian dictatorship, and certainly be an entirely negative and reactionary attack leading to the Iranian workers' movement being set back. For those reason also we oppose and condemn any such attacks.

It would also do nothing to protect Israeli or Palestinian workers who if anything would be more likely to face attacks by Islamic terrorists and blanket reprisals by the IDF. For all these reasons an israeli attack should be opposed and condemned in the strongest possible terms.

Daniel seems to imply that somehow this means glossing over the crimes of the Iranian dictatorship. Not at all! This is perhaps the mistake he is making- it is perfectly possible to oppose two enemies and support the self-organisation of workers in Iran, Israel/Palestine and the rest of the world and lend practical solidarity/funds etc for those workers on the sharp end.


This website uses cookies, you can find out more and set your preferences here.
By continuing to use this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.