Airstrip One

Collective Guilt - a dodgy concept

Why do all Libertarians believe in the essentially fascist concept of collective guilt? Of course not all of them do, not even most of them, but if the concept of all Libertarians believing in something is so outrageous it should show how stupid the concept of collective guilt is.

Andrew Dodge doesn't seem to think so. He lambasts Iain Dale for condemning the Israeli's "war of terror" on the Palestinians. (My response is that I don't care either way, so don't get me in that Jews'n'Muslims gig). Now he didn't deny that the Israeli's were launching a war of terror, just that the idea was in itself wrong.

I'm not writing this to defend Iain Dale, who is perfectly grown up enough to defend himself, but to show the weakness in Dodge's arguments. Let it be said that the left-wing pro-Palestinians excuse Palestinian attrocities with the same preference for emotion over logic as Mr Dodge.

How can someone who claims to be an admirer of Lady T come out in favour of Palestinian terrorists?

I hardly see support for Israel as a central tenet of Thatcherism, any more than support for the war on drugs.

The more important part is that Iain Dale talks about the "Palestinians" and not the PLO or Hamas, his only mention of the terrorists is to brand them "insane". So, it's alright to launch a terrorist war against the "Palestinians" for the crimes of the PLO? This seems to me to be fascist, in the sense that you see the community - and not the individual - as the repository of wisdom and sin.

To claim that they are taking out their infrastructure or that the civillian casualties are sadly unavoidable is one thing, but to be an apologist for what you perceive as a terrorist campaign against an entire people - well its not exactly the height of enlightenment thought.

Israeli citizens have the right to live their lives without the constant threat of being killed by suicidal/homicidal fanatics with bombs strapped to themselves.

Yes they do. However as the line "a terror campaign against the Palestinians - not just over the last three weeks, but for many years" would suggest a slightly longer term view than the start of the suicide bombing campaign. The suicide bombing campaign happened long after the Israeli occupation, and can properly be ascribed to be a reaction to Israeli policies. So when Iain Dale is condemning policies in place "many years" ago, it can't be claimed that these policies were a reaction to suicide bombers who were not a factor "many years" ago.

Iain, have you forgotten that Palestinians cheered on the streets upon hearing the news of the 9/11 attacks?

As Iain has mentioned "their cheering in the streets when anything bad happens to the USA or Israel" I think it is safe to assume that he has not forgotten. Still do these deluded acts of free expression by a minority justify a terror campaign against a whole people? Why should it be any more of a factor than the Palestinians who gave blood?

Thinking like that is the same as thinking like Bin Laden when he sees all Americans as guilty for the occupation of Saudi Arabia or the starvation of Iraq. And on the (ethically worthless) collective guilt front he's got a stronger point, as the average American has more chance to vote for his President than the average Palestinian.