Sadly, within a few paragraphs of the start of his reply, Moshe makes a basic error in his reading of Sean's article.
Matgamna’s mild ‘objection’ In his ‘letter’ he protests: “I did and do ‘object’ to [an Israeli attack on Iran], and said so a number of times in the short article!”
This seems clear enough. But then it transpires that his ‘objection’ is not really that much of an objection: “My language expressed my determination not to join in with, or peacefully to tolerate, the outright condemnation of Israel that will most likely follow an Israeli attack, condemnation rooted in the ‘demon-Zionism’ prejudice of the kitsch-left and in the view that Israel has no right to defend itself ... “I will not, in response to an Israeli strike at Iranian nuclear installations, adopt the viewpoint that there is something so incomprehensible in such a strike that Israel as such must be condemned outright.”
So he will “object”, but will not ‘condemn outright’. Weasel words. I suppose his ‘objection’ will take the form of a gentle, wistful shaking of the head.
Moshe has (accidentally? wilfully?) conflated condemnation/objection to an Israeli attack on Iran with condemnation/objection to Israel per se.
I don't always find Sean's writing clear, but on this he is clear ... I do object to an attack ... I will not join in condemnation *of Israel* ie of Israel per se, not of the specific attack.
Therefore this sentence - So he will “object”, but will not ‘condemn outright’. - is disingenuous. Why? Because the objection that Sean refers to is the Israeli attack, the condemnation he refers to is of Israel itself.