Add new comment

Submitted by sacha on Mon, 22/09/2008 - 13:38


Once again you blur the real issues with phrase-mongering.

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

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.

We also object to the implication that an Iranian nuclear programme would not pose a serious threat to Israel, that there is nothing for Israelis - as distinct from Israeli chauvinists - to be worried about.

We also object to the claim that what we are talking about is "an attack on Iranian workers". An Israeli attack would very likely have very bad consequences for the Iranian working class; which is among the reasons we oppose it, as explained above. But would it really be an attack on Iranian workers? In striking Iranian nuclear facilities, would the Israeli ruling class be aiming to retard/destroy Iranian workers' struggles? (Yes, I know they're capitalist and are against workers' struggles in general, before you say something ridiculous!) Was it really an attack on Syrian workers when they destroyed the nuclear facilities last year (which I would have opposed if I known about it in advance)?
