30.10.2008
Matgamna chickens out
As can be seen from the following correspondence, the AWL is refusing to debate its leader's notorious 'discussion article' excusing an Israeli attack on Iran
Martin Thomas to Mark Fischer, October 28
Hi
1. We proposed to you a debate on “Israel, Iran and socialist politics” (following up the more general proposal on August 3 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 the 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 October 12 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 October 12 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 …
Thanks
Mark Fischer to Martin Thomas, October 30
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
