AWL-WW correspondence over a debate on Israel and Iran, Oct-Nov 2008

Submitted by martin on 8 November, 2008 - 6:21 Author: Martin Thomas/ Mark Fischer

Song of the Weekly Worker

I'm so small! But I'm poisonous too;
What I say is at best but half-true:
I spread gossip thin,
So they'll think I'm well in;
But I'm useful, torn up in the loo!
__________
In August AWL approached the Weekly Worker group for a debate on Israel and Iran. The WW group has wriggled out of this debate, while simultaneously, at the top of its voice, accusing AWL of refusing to debate with WW! Bizarre? Yes. But here's the correspondence since 14 October, so that readers can see for themselves that there is no fire behind the billowing masses of WW smoke on this question. MT.


The correspondence is in chronological order, i.e. earliest first, latest last.
AWL to WW, 14/10/08

Hi,

After the Machover-Matgamna debate on 12 October, Mark Fischer said to me that your group was keen to debate us on Israel and Iran.

Good. We suggest Sunday 23 November for such a debate, with a set-up similar to the Machover-Matgamna debate.

Also after the debate, Tina Becker told me that your group has changed its position on "two states" in Israel-Palestine to "something much closer to Moshe Machover".

Is that so? Is the change of position codified in writing? Would you point us to the relevant texts?

Thanks,

Martin Thomas


WW to AWL, 14/10/08

Martin

We are indeed very keen to re-visit the subject - I was going to write to you this very day to suggest the same. We have quite a few internal and external events throughout November, so I need to check over the next day or so and get back to you. However, it seems to fit from what I can see of the diary at the moment.

A small suggestion for the next time just from myself, though. One - a bigger venue. Two - given your culture of drinking before and during political meetings - not in a pub.

I just asked Tina about your other comment, by the way. She said no such thing, of course. She told you that we have a Party majority for two states, then a *minority* of other comrades for a singular, secular Palestine, etc. Perhaps you got confused in the aftermath of such a lively meeting.

With communist greetings

Mark Fischer


AWL to WW, 14/10/08

Hi,

We propose as the title of the debate: "Israel, Iran, and socialist politics" - it will have to take up issues of political method wider than assessments or attitudes specific to Israel and Iran.

Thanks,

Martin Thomas


WW to AWL, 14/10/08

Martin
Just so I have some possible fall-back dates if comrades raise problems, are there any problems for AWLers with:
- the weekend of November 29/30?
- Sunday, December 7?
Let me know.
MF


AWL to WW, 14/10/08

30 Nov ok. 7 Dec isn't (clashes with No Sweat conference).


AWL to WW, 14/10/08

Also, 29 Nov not good (though 30 Nov ok).


WW to AWL, 14/10/08

OK, thanks
MF


AWL to WW, 14/10/08

Hi,

Tina definitely didn't say anything about majority or minority positions, or about a single-state position.

Anyway, your majority position is unchanged? Would you recommend us a text which can be taken as an authoritative statement of that position?

Thanks,

Martin


AWL to WW, 17/10/08

Hi,

I see that Tina has posted a comment on our website in which she gives a different picture of the various views within your group on Israel-Palestine.

So I'm writing again to seek an authoritative statement of your group's views on the issue. See below for my response on the website to Tina's comment.

Three things arising:

a) Can you confirm whether my surmise is right: that your group contains three views on Israel-Palestine, two states (majority), single-state (minority), and close to Moshe Machover's view (another minority)?

b) Will you point us to a text which we can take as an authoritative statement of your group's current majority view? And maybe also to statements of the two minority views, if the minorities have licence to express themselves publicly?

c) Any news on 23 November or alternative dates?

Thanks,

Martin Thomas

From the website:

Sorry, Tina: you didn't say anything about majority and minority views, or when you had a vote, or whether anyone in the WW group agrees with the SWP line...

I wanted to be clear on what the WW's views were, and whether I'd understood you right. So, after talking to you I wrote to the WW office. The reply I got was that the WW majority is for two states, and a minority says that the Israeli Jews being brought under the rule of a single Palestinian state (presumably with an Arab majority) should be a precondition for peace.

If I understand your new comment correctly, you're saying that is not quite true. There are three positions: two states; single-state; and another. The view "closer to Moshe's position" is not (as I evidently misunderstood you to say) a new stance of the whole WW group, but rather the policy advocated by a second minority. Is that right?

No, nothing wrong with having different views inside the group. What there's something wrong with is that on 12 October even the two-states people were applauding along with the "dismantle Israel" crowd, and not arguing their own views.

I also asked the WW office for a text which we can take as an authoritative statement of the group's (majority) view. Will you supply that?


WW to AWL, 20/10/08

Martin

We spoke over the weekend and now suggest that we actually go for November 30. There are a few other things we want to make clear:

1. First - and given Matgamna's farcical behaviour at the October 12 event, plus your own mendacious report subsequently - it is important that you are tied down on what we will actually debate. We will debate you on Israel and Iran - the topic that AWL pre-publicity claimed would be discuss on October 12. Thus it is appropriate to use the title of Matgamna's original July 24 "discussion article" for the event - 'What if Israel bombs Iran?'

2. We want the author of this article to debate us - Sean Matgamna. Our speaker will be John Bridge.

3. It is not appropriate to meet in a pub. You should instruct your members that they do not drink before or during the meeting. This issue has generated considerable heat between our organisations. As we feared (and flagged up with Sasha Ismail in a FaceBook conversation) this led to "some booze-fuelled" AWLers (as I observed in my WW report) physically confronting others on the night. We should remove alcohol from the political mix - what and where people drink post the meeting is entirely up to them, of course.

With communist greetings

Mark Fischer

PS: I'm surprised you didn't simply take the initiative and look for the Israel-Palestine material yourself.

Our official position, voted for in a 2002 aggregate, is for two states. See:
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/432/solution.html

As you will have seen from various discussion list contributions by some CPGB comrades, we have a minority that disagrees with this position. Also, some 'Weekly Worker' writers, including Peter Manson, have since advocated that the two-states policy should an element of a larger programme for an Arab federation. See the end of this article, for example:
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/636/two%20nations.htm

I hope this calms your agitation about this. Your laughable question whether "minorities have license to express themselves publicly?" on this issue doesn't really need an answer, does it? You see, Martin, we don't gag minorities. Or ban them from the platforms of other groups in the workers' movement. Or demand they pen 'loyalty test' articles.

You must be thinking of another organisation ...


AWL to WW, 22/10/08

Hi,

1. 30 Nov is ok.

2. We proposed a debate on "Israel, Iran, and socialist politics", and you accepted, with reservations about the date. You can advertise the debate to your own people as you wish, pose what questions you wish in the debate, etc. But the debate we've challenged you to have, and which you've accepted, is on "Israel, Iran, and socialist politics".

Substantively, we insist on a political debate rather than a ludicrous "when did you stop supporting an Israeli nuclear strike on Iran?" session.

3. We'll decide our own speaker, thanks, but I expect it'll be Sean.

4. We have no objection to a non-pub meeting room, as long as it is central and affordable. Any suggestions?

As to the rest, we recommend you withdraw your untrue accusations that AWL members were drunk on 12 October, and instruct your members not to engage in personalised baiting of AWL individuals of the type practised on 12 October.

Martin


WW to AWL, 26/10/08

Martin

1. November 30 date: Good, we will make provisional arrangements on the basis of this. We want to arrange the venue this time rather than leave it to you, I think.

2. There is no possibility that we will accept a debate titled 'Israel, Iran and socialist politics'. This is almost exactly the same title as the CMP-hosted event - ie, 'Israel, Iran and the left'- and when Matgamna spoke on this on October 12 he failed to mention the question of an Israeli attack on Iran at all! This despite the fact that your own publicity told us that the first point of contention would be ""What would socialists say if Israel bombed Iran?" From comments on your internal lists, it is clear that even your own members were frustrated and bemused by this.

We have no intention of again wasting the time of our comrades, of yours or the wider left's. Thus, we insist that:

a) The debate is about the politics of the Sean Matgamna "discussion article" featured in your newspaper Solidarity of July 24. This was headlined 'What if Israel bombs Iran?' and concludes with a call for a discussion on the issues it flags up. Fine. That is the article and the politics we want to discuss. Thus, logically, that should be the title of the debate.

b) It is Matgamna's article, so he must take responsibility for defending its politics. We have no intention of being fobbed off with some other AWL speaker. We want Matgamna.

3. As for your nonsense about some of your comrades not being drunk and abusive on October 12, I recommend you refresh your memory by reading Peter Manson's article in this week's paper (www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/742/cowardice.html). Your comment re: "personalised baiting" of AWLers is an apolitical diversion: we reiterate our demand that your comrades are sober before and during this highly contentious debate.

Where they go after and how much they drink when they get there is their affair.

With communist greetings

Mark Fischer


AWL to WW, 26/10/08

Hi,

1. We proposed to you a debate on "Israel, Iran, and socialist politics" (following up the more general proposal on 3 August of a debate "on the question of Israel-Palestine"). You accepted. Are you saying that you will now withdraw unless the title is changed?

2. Do not pretend that this is because you want to ask questions about Sean's article in Solidarity 3/136. As I indicated in my previous email, you are at liberty to ask all questions you want about that article in the debate.

3. What's your problem? If you ask questions, and Sean fails to answer them, then that will help your side in the debate. As far as I can see, the problem is that you want to push aside the bigger political questions - programme, basic politics - which alone can take the debate above the level of concocted accusations and rebuttals (you did! we didn't! you did so! etc.)

4. It is not true that on 12 October Sean did not discuss a possible Israeli attack on Iran. Whether he chose to take that up in his first speech or in his second speech on 12 October is another question, and not of any consequence here. As you know, he has also dealt with the allegations on that question at length in writing.

5. We will choose our own speaker. As I said in the previous email, I expect it will be Sean.

6. How is an article in your paper supposed to persuade me to forget the evidence of my own senses as regards your lie that AWL members were drunk on 12 October? The use of personalised baiting in place of political argument is a political matter.

7. You're happy to take on the job of arranging the venue? Fine. But please consult us (i.e. tell us where you have in mind, and the cost), before making any definitive arrangements.

8. Finally, on authoritative statements of the position of your majority and your two minorities on Israel-Palestine.

Your 2002 resolution is still an authoritative statement of the majority position? Thanks for confirming that.

The "something more like Moshe Machover" position is represented by Peter Manson's recent article in which he argued for "two states" but only on the condition that the Palestinian state was much bigger (how much bigger?) than the West Bank and Gaza?

I ask for confirmation on this, because Moshe's position is only to a marginal extent concerned with how big the land area of a Palestinian state might be. I heard his heckle to Sacha Ismail on 12 October on this question, but I can't recall any of his writings mentioning it. In fact one main argument in his writings is that the Israel-Palestine question should not be thought of as one of how to divide up or allocate the land area of 1948 Palestine: that it can be resolved only in the framework of a socialist federation covering the whole Middle East, etc.

And the single-state position? You say that it has appeared on "various discussion lists"? Where? Which piece, on those discussion lists, can be taken as a considered and more or less complete statement of that minority position?

Thanks,

Martin


AWL WW to AWL, 30/10/08

Martin

Stop clowning around. We have been chasing you for a debate on Israel and the threat of war on Iran since May of this year. You have ducked, dived and at the CMP-AWL meeting on October 12 your leading member refused to address the central question - despite the fact that it was meant to be the substantive issue for debate!

What we are saying is very simple:

1. Sean Matgamna published a "discussion article" on July 24 in Solidarity, the paper of the Alliance for Workers' Liberty.

2. In this, he stated that the left "needs to discuss [the] issues" he brought up.

3. We agree. We want to discuss the issues that Matgamna brought up in his "discussion article". We have been trying for some time to pin you down to a time, date and venue for a meeting on this subject.

Of course, we could pose your own question back to you - "What's your problem?" It would be disingenuous of us, however. We know exactly what the AWL's problem is with having Sean Matgamna on a platform discussing "in the name of what alternative would we condemn Israel?" if it started dropping bombs on Iran. Despite your pain, however, we insist that:

* We debate the key issue of 'What if Israel bombs Iran?' - the title of the "discussion article".

* We debate Sean Matgamna, the author of this article and therefore the man who should defend the scandalous ideas it contains.

Is this explicit enough for you, Martin? We want to discuss the politics of the looming war in the Middle East - how can such a debate be described as an attempt to "push aside the bigger political questions"? What planet are you on?

With communist greetings

Mark Fischer


AWL to WW, 30/10/08

Hi,

What a lot of words, but no answer to our question. Are you refusing to debate unless the title is changed?

Martin Thomas


WW to AWL, 03/11/08

Martin
The 'refusal' is clearly the AWL's. To be clear, please confirm that you are refusing to have Sean Matgamna on a platform with John Bridge, debate his "discussion article" of July 24 - 'What if Israel bombs Iran?'
Mark Fischer


WW to AWL, 03/11/08

Hi,

No. We wrote to you for a debate on "Israel, Iran, and socialist politics" (14 October). You agreed, with reservations only on the date and meeting place. Later (22 October) [in fact, 26 October: my mistake] you said there was "no chance" of you doing the debate we'd agreed on. So, you're withdrawing, or not?

Let's clear that up before you make new proposals.

To repeat: in the debate we propose, there is nothing to stop John Bridge and your other speakers devoting as much of their speeches as they like to Sean's 24 July article. We will choose our speaker. I expect it will be Sean.

So, no, we are not "refusing to have Sean Matgamna on a platform with John Bridge, debate his "discussion article" of July 24 - 'What if Israel bombs Iran?'"

Martin


AWL to WW, 06/11/08

Martin
Still clowning, I see.
No, we are not “withdrawing” from any discussion. We are insisting that the genuine debate /actually takes place/. The AWL’s attempts to present the CPGB as an organisation ducking a debate was causing some hilarity on the left even before Matgamna’s cowardly performance at the CMP-hosted event on October 12. (I remind you, you were originally invited to debate us back in May of this year!) Post that debacle, you are now just making yourselves look slightly unhinged.
Our initial exchanges over this proposed meeting concerned venue/date of the event and you were told that I would “chase dates and comrades' opinions” about it (MF email October 14). This was done over the weekend of October 18/19 and after this you were sent our first collective response to your proposal. This stated:
“There is no possibility that we will accept a debate titled ‘Israel, Iran and socialist politics’. This is almost exactly the same title as the CMP-hosted event - ie, 'Israel, Iran and the left'- and when Matgamna spoke on this on October 12 he failed to mention the question of an Israeli attack on Iran at all! This despite the fact that your own publicity told us that the first point of contention would be "What would socialists say if Israel bombed Iran?" From comments on your internal lists, it is clear that even your own members were frustrated and bemused by this. We have no intention of again wasting the time of our comrades, of yours or the wider left's.”
Your wheedling comment that “there is nothing to stop John Bridge and your other speakers devoting as much of their speeches as they like to Sean's 24 July article” is frankly risible. The point is not that our comrades talk about this foul “discussion article” – I assure you they certainly will. The point is that the /author/ of this notorious piece must defend it and explain its methods.
Our position is crystal clear and so, I’m afraid, is yours. You are clearly ducking a debate on the July 24 article and – in time-honoured AWL fashion – attempting to lay down covering fire to facilitate your lily-livered retreat.
You tell us that you “expect” your speaker will be Matgamna – thus giving you option of putting another AWL member on the platform who will simply deflect CPGB criticism by pointing out that the offending article is Matgamna’s personal position. Incredibly, you suggest that that our insistence on actually discussing a “discussion article” that /you/ called on the left “to discuss … in advance” of any Israeli military action is an attempt to “push aside the bigger political questions – programme, basic politics” (MT October 26)!
If you were /actually/ so shy of a discussion around the themes in this article why flag up the need for it in the first place?! And are you really trying to seriously suggest that an Israeli military strike on Iran does not involve basic programmatic question for working class politicians?!
For once, Martin, give a straight answer to a straight question – why are you so queasy about having Matgamna on a platform with John Bridge, defending his July 24 “discussion article” - 'What if Israel bombs Iran?'"?
With communist greetings
Mark Fischer


AWL to WW, 06/11/08

Hi,
Even more words, still no answer. Yes or no: you're withdrawing from the debate fixed in mid-October, or no?
As for the "another AWL member on the platform who will simply deflect CPGB criticism by pointing out that the offending article is Matgamna’s personal position" business, no AWL speaker did any "deflecting" on 12 October, so this is just more smokescreen.
Martin


WW to AWL, 06/11/08

Martin
As I said, starting to look "slightly unhinged" there, mate.
Just for my records, could you send me the date or the email itself where you are told that we agree to the original title? I seem to have misplaced it.
You're joking re: 'deflection', I presume. After all, do I need to remind you that your own publicity for the event told us that we would be discussing “What would socialists say if Israel bombed Iran?” And clearly, Martin, you personally had a hunch that the debate on the night might be heavily influenced by this issue as the first five of the eight headlined subject areas in your internal briefing paper concerned Iran (eg, “Iran: does it have a nuclear weapons programme?”; “Oppose Iran having nuclear weapons? Or it’s not an issue?”, etc).
What happened? Matgamna refused to discuss Iran and the prospect of an Israeli attack! So don't talk bilge about AWLers playing a 'straight bat' on October 12: your own chosen speaker 'deflected' the issue we had all gathered there to debate! (Which is, of course, why your own members admitted to being “perplexed” by Matgamna’s “odd” decision to “completely [leave] out the whole Iran issue” from his talk on October 12. Shout across your office and ask Sacha what he thinks now, as he admitted on the same list: “I don’t know either why Sean didn’t mention Iran in his opening speech. No doubt he’ll explain and then we can discuss” (Weekly Worker, October 16)).
So cut the crap that the CPGB's attempt to pin you down on *the genuine content of any new meeting* is in some way to duck the confrontation. It is an attempt to ensure that the AWL - or specifically, Sean Matgamna - actually defends the July 24 "discussion article" that you seem so reluctant to ... er ... discuss.
You clearer now?
With communist greetings
Mark Fischer


AWL to WW, 06/11/08

Hi,
1. On 14 October you wrote to us agreeing to the debate. You didn't specifically agree to the title, but you didn't object either.
That's agreeing to the debate we proposed, as described by... its title. Otherwise you'd write back and say "no, we're not debating that, but we will debate XYZ other subject".
You did specifically raise queries about other aspects of our proposal for a debate (date and so on), but not about the title.
2. Doubtless there would be room for discussion on fine-tuning the title by mutual consent. Not for "no, now we won't debate unless you change the title".
3. Sean discussed Iran and the prospect of an Israeli attack on 12 October. He did it in his second speech rather than his first.
A number of other AWL speakers discussed it, too.
4. The general title that we proposed cannot hinder you in saying in the debate whatever you want to say about the Solidarity 3/136 article.
You think we won't answer adequately? Seems unlikely to me, but if that happens, then we'll lose the debate, won't we? Not something for you to run scared of.
5. Bottom line: we proposed a debate. It is on "Israel, Iran, and socialist politics", and it is on 30 November.
You agreed to it, and now you don't agree?
It looks to me like you want to be able to conduct an agitation about wanting to debate, but without actually debating.
All right: that's your choice. If you don't want to take part, we have other things to do.
Martin


WW to AWL, 06/11/08

Martin, this really is quite delicious. Let's get what you're saying straight, shall we? I will be using all this material publicly, of course, so I'd be grateful for any more you can provide for me.
1. You wrote to us on October 14 proposing a debate on 'Israel, Iran, and socialist politics'. Of course we wanted to debate the AWL on the prospect of an Israeli attack on Iran - it was, after all, what we thought we would be debating at the CMP-hosted event on October 12. It was the reason why I approached you as you were leaving the venue and preparing to disappear off into the night; to specifically demand a re-match given Matgamna's cowardly evasions upstairs. But in the pithy email exchanges we then had on October 14, we only haggled re: possible dates. At the same time, however, you were specifically told that I would "chase dates and comrades' opinions today and get back to you asap". (After all, I presume your proposal for the debate's title etc wasn't something you dreamed up while musing in the bath? That you actually consulted other leading AWL comrades on it? Of course, you did). You now - at last! - admit that at no point did we "specifically agree to the title"! (Although the lying culture of the AWL still impels you in the very same short email to actually *repeat* an accusation you admit a few lines earlier is not true! You write "You agreed to [a debate with this title] and now you don't agree?"! - do try to get your lies straight, Martin ...).
You were simply told that I would be canvassing other comrades' opinions on your proposal and getting back to you. Yet from this, you have concocted absolute, unmitigated tripe about the CPGB "wriggling out" of the debate and you have prominently featured these childishly transparent lies on your website. You have repeatedly implied in the crap you have written that we agreed to *this* debate, with this title. Now you have to admit - when pinned down by a direct question from me - that *never* did we "specifically agree to the title"!
3. When other leading CPGBers' opinions had been 'canvassed', I came back to you with our *first* response to your proposed title - we categorically rejected it and we have maintained this position consistently throughout this exchange. So, yes, we did certainly did "object" to your proposed title.
4. Let's put aside your nonsense re: "fine-tuning" the meeting's title. We are determined to pin you down on the *content* of debate. Sean did *not* "[discuss] Iran and the prospect of an Israeli attack on 12 October". After totally ignoring this - the substantive item of debate - for his first 35 minute ramble, he was *compelled* to try to deflect some of the storm of criticism we raised at the meeting, that's all. Tell me, if this is simply an invention of the CPGB, why are your own comrades raising this shocking silence on your own internal lists? (As I suggested, mate, just shout over to Sacha Ismail in the AWL office and ask him for some clarification).
5. I have already dealt with your nonsense re: your proposed title doing nothing to "hinder [us] in saying in the debate whatever you want to say about the Solidarity 3/136 article". In general terms, it is pretty clear what we will say about the article - that's not really the point, is it? The question is what Matgamna may choose to talk about on the night. (Presuming you took the chance of having this loose cannon reactionary on the platform at all, that is). We would certainly talk about the substantive controversy. It is clear that Matgamna - or whoever gets the gig - would attempt to lecture us on two-states like we are SWPers or talk the usual bilge about our "Stalinism" (or more specifically our "Third Period Stalinism" in the case of your oafish Paul Hampton). They would duck the debate, in other words.
6. Martin, it is clear you do not want to discuss Matgamna's article and the politics it embodies. It is clear that you have attempted - extremely unsuccessfully, let me note - to raise as much fluff and nonsense as possible to cover your pathetic retreat. It is clear that the CPGB *never* agreed to a debate with the title you proposed - if you have any morality as a communist, you should now admit as such publicly. We certainly will be making it known on the left - including on your own website.
Is this really the reason you came into working class politics, Martin? To spend your days dreaming up feeble and contemptible lies against political opponents?
With communist greetings
Mark Fischer


AWL to WW, 06/11/08

Hi,
So many, so very many, words. But in short, your case is that if you agree to a debate on X, you're just agreeing to a debate on *something*?
And you can quite reasonably come back a week or so later and say: "No, we will never ever ever debate X!"?
First you agreed to a debate on "Israel, Iran, the left", but ducked out by getting Moshe Machover to speak instead of yourselves. You hadn't thought of the "object to the title" trick then. Now you duck out by objecting to the title.
Martin


WW to AWL, 07/11/08

Martin
You really are losing it aren't you, sparky? Let's do it again - I'm enjoying myself tremendously:
1. Do you remember your last email at all, mate? You conceded - when directly questioned by me - that we *never* agreed to your proposed title for the debate. True or false? Do you remember writing that at no point in our exchanges on October we did we "specifically agree to the title" offered by you? So, clearly we wanted to debate you over the issues flagged up in Matgamna's July 24 article, but we do not find your proposed title acceptable. As I have pointed out repeatedly in the course of this enjoyable exchange, this title was almost exactly the same as that of the CMP-hosted event ... and at it Matgamna ducked out of debating his own discussion article! (Have you clarified the situation with Sacha, by the way? I only ask as on your internal list - in addition to agreeing with others when he wrote "“I don’t know either why Sean didn’t mention Iran in his opening speech" - he reassured people that "No doubt he’ll explain and then we can discuss.” So, has he explained yet, Martin? Is Sacha satisfied with his excuses? Are you?).
2. We came back to you with the demand that there be no more AWL evasions - we wanted Matgamna and we wanted him on the July 24 "discussion article" that he appears so shy of actually discussing. This is the title that precisely describes what the content of the debate has to be - and we have no accepted any other title at *any* stage, have we? True or false?
3. *We* got Moshe to speak for *us*?! Pardon? Martin, *you* phoned Moshe for that debate. (Very oddly, Matgamna seemed unaware of this on October 12 and to be under the impression - as you imply here - that we put Moshe up for the meeting. Now, now Martin - have you been telling porkies to everyone again?). On the night, Moshe spoke for no one but himself - neither he nor any other comrade claimed anything different!
4. You know for an intelligent man, you do come across as willfully stupid. We object to your proposed title *now* Martin because *now* its got a history, hasn't it? We saw what Matgamna did with it on October 12 - he ducked the debate on Israel-Iran! (eg: See Sacha's comments above and those of others on your internal list). As I wrote to you on October 26:
"The debate is about the politics of the Sean Matgamna 'discussion article' featured in your newspaper Solidarity of July 24. This was headlined 'What if Israel bombs Iran?' and concludes with a call for a discussion on the issues it flags up. Fine. That is the article and the politics we want to discuss. Thus, logically, that should be the title of the debate".
This is precisely not a quibble over the title - we are trying to pin you down on the *content* of the debate and *that* is what you are running away from.
C'mon, Martin - why not Matgamna and why on 'What if Israel bombs Iran?'? Don't you think he'd win?
wcg
MF


AWL to WW, 07/11/08

Hi,

1. We proposed a debate with you on a particular title, moreover one similar to what had been mutually acceptable only a couple of days before. You said yes to the debate (while making reservations on the date, etc.).

That meant saying yes to a debate about the subject described in that title.

Eight days later [in fact 12: my mistake] you wrote that "There is no possibility that we will accept a debate titled 'Israel, Iran and socialist politics'." That meant withdrawing from the debate you earlier accepted.

2. Some "drafting amendment" to the title, by mutual agreement - that might well be ok.

Suggesting that we change the title because we should accept your charge that we were "ducking issues" on 12 October is plainly not a goer.

It is of the same stripe as the SLL's insistence, in the 1960s, that the YCL should agree to debate with the SLL under the title "Stalinism vs Trotskyism".

3. I guess you make the suggestion only as a "hook" on which to hange your claim that we "ducked" issues on 12 October.

In fact, Sean spoke about his article on 12 October. He chose to do that in his second speech and to devote all of his first to the basic programmatic issues. That is not ducking anything.

Other AWL speakers spoke on the article. Sean has replied at length in writing to the charges about the article.

4. Yes, I phoned Moshe. I phoned to ask him to debate with AWL.

That was not a proposal to WW that you substitute Moshe for yourselves in the debate I'd proposed to you on 19 August (and agreed to). I did not consult WW about our invitation to Moshe. I did not propose to Moshe that he get you to stand down.

As well as the AWL-WW debate, we wanted an AWL-Machover debate.

Moshe told me that in principle he wanted to debate, but could not take an individual decision; on matters concerning Iran, he considered himself tied to Hopi, and would debate only as arranged by Hopi.

Since Hopi had refused to debate with AWL, that seemed to scupper that.

Then we found that in Sacha's correspondence with Ben Lewis about an AWL-WW debate (quite separate from my approach to Moshe), Ben had substituted Moshe as the speaker.

As I've already explained, we weren't specially unhappy about that: we thought a debate with Moshe would be more fruitful than one with WW.

Sacha wrote to you asking what had happened to the AWL-WW debate we'd proposed, and got no clear answer, but we left it at that.

It was your choice to transform an AWL-WW debate into an AWL-Machover debate. We approached both WW and Moshe Machover, separately, for debates.

4. I take it that you are in fact withdrawing from the debate we had pencilled in for 30 November. I guess that terminates this correspondence.

Martin


WW to AWL, 10 November 2008

Martin

Your whole intention in this exchange has been to cover your refusal to debate Matgamna's "discussion article". You keep repeating obvious falsehoods that you have already been caught out in and stupid ideas I have answered repeatedly. In that sense, you are right - this exchange in its current form has no more value for us. I wonder what on the value has been to you?

Perhaps - as with so many other AWL provocations - it is designed for internal rather than external consumption? While I presume you have been posting your notes to me internally, I wonder if you have been posting my replies? I know what my money's on.

So I think we'll do you openly now, mate. See the next 'Weekly Worker'.

With communist greetings

Mark Fischer

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.