Add new comment

Submitted by martin on Fri, 12/09/2008 - 15:39

Jason, read the original article. It does express scorn for various "duff" grounds on which Israel (as such) is likely to be condemned in the wake of an attack, but it does not say that it "would not condemn an attack".

I think the impression of unclarity in the original article is largely a "so much smoke, there must be fire" thing generated from the outcry against it - but in any case the alleged unclarity is certainly resolved in Sean's reply to Moshe Machover (above).

So let's now discuss the real issues. You define any Israeli raid on Iran as "imperialist or proxy attacks". Exactly what do you mean?

Israel is certainly imperialist in the Occupied Territories, but it has no imaginable schemes to conquer or dominate Iran. If the USA wanted to attack Iran - it seems that some people in the Bush administration did want to, but lost the argument there - the last thing it would want is Israeli involvement.

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.