Add new comment

Submitted by martin on Fri, 26/09/2008 - 22:27

Jason, read Sean's latest reply to Moshe Machover on the "not condemn" bit. What the original article did (and if it was unclear, it has certainly been explained in laborious detail now) was rule out various "duff" grounds for condemning Israel as such in the wake of a raid on Iranian nuclear facilities. It also, as Moshe Machover now concedes, clearly "objected to" (opposed, whatever) such a raid.

Of course, the starting point for the original article was indeed that the Israeli government was considering a raid. The stuff in the Guardian was all in the Israeli press a while back; hence our original article.

Nor, unfortunately, would I take it as certain even now that Israel will not launch a strike. The probability has, I guess, dropped a notch with Livni defeating Mofaz, but it is still a real possibility.

We have been "debating the issues", haven't we? The question of whether PR's position is or is not (a) to be pro-Iran rather than "third camp" in the event of an Israel-Iran or US-Iran clash; and (b) to support Iran's alleged right to develop nuclear weapons - that came up because you suggested it was not PR's position.

Sure, we have to "create a movement". But the movement needs politics. And if it is waterlogged with the sort of Israelophobic politics illustrated in the celebrated Workers' Power cartoon depicting revolution as capitalism being pushed into the abyss by a mullah and a veiled woman (with a stereotype worker also hanging around with them), then the movement won't be much good.

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.