BUSH AND BLAIR THE TERRORISTS by John Gulliver Camden New Journal, London, 4 May 2006 To many in the audience in the Bloomsbury bookshop, it must have seemed the eminent philosopher had uttered the hideously unthinkable: That terrorism was justifiable. This isn't the first time that Ted Honderich, reputed to be one of the foremost philosophers of the Left, has expressed similar ideas (see Blair's Moral Barbarism). But on Tuesday in the Common Room atmosphere of the quiet bookshop -- run by the London Review of Books magazine in Bury Place -- Honderich's words sounded like a bombshell. All the more, because he gave his talk -- held to promote his latest book on terrorism -- in the quiet style he is known for at London University where he lectures in philosophy of the mind and logic. Pugnaciously, he turned his guns on Tony Blair and George Bush arguing that there was little difference between Palestinian terrorists, responsible for killing women and children in Israel, and the terrorism of the two leaders. He described me war in Iraq as "monstrous". If an opponent of the war argued like that it would sound like second rate rhetoric. But when a philosopher of Honderich's stature comes straight out with it, it sounds like the start of a war with less robust academics and political pundits. Logically it followed for someone with his views that somehow Bush and Blair would then have to bear responsibility for the terrorist attack on New York's World Trade Center on September 11 -- and Honderich, true to his beliefs, refused to duck the issue for the terror attack. He accused the two leaders of being bom enemies and "friends" of terrorism. Enemies? Obviously, through legislation and military   action.  But friends? Well, argued Honderich, weren't they indirectly encouraging terrorism through their support of Israel and the subsequent oppression of the Palestinians? He recalled how New Labour had made great play in its early days of the slogan 'Tough on crime, and tough on the causes of crime'. Logically, this slogan should apply to the 'crime' of terrorism. But since September 11, he reminded the audience, both Blair and Bush had never said a word about the 'causes' of terrorism. Questions poured in from the audience, among them, inevitably on Palestine: How could he justify suicide bombers blowing up innocent children on buses? "Because there are innocent people who are killed in innumerable numbers on the buses in. Iraq and they are killed by the forces of reason, I am not fond of distinguishing between different kinds of terrorism," he replied in reasoned tone, just like a philosopher. "The difference between Iraq and Palestine from the point of view of reason is just this: we do vastly more in Iraq than we do in Palestine." And then to make his views more crystal clear, he added: "The Palestinians have a moral right to their terrorism in me face of ethnic cleansing." In case you are beginning to ask yourself whether this man is anti-semitic -- he made it clear he believed it was right the victims of the Holocaust should have been given a home in Israel. And he drew a distinction between early Zionism of the late 1940s and 'neo'-Zionism' that reflected an aggressive Israel from the late 1960s onwards. For a related article, go to Blair's Moral Barbarism. HOME to T.H. website front page HOME to Det & Free front page