[winter_blue]

You're advocating for collective punishment.

Let's say 51% of the U.S. voted for a crazy President from party "X" who became a dictator (illegally), and did terrible horrible unspeakable things.

And, let's say the 49% of the U.S. that didn't support said nutjob President, vehemently protested and did everything they could to oppose him[0].

Now, let's the say the rest of the world unites to defeat the U.S. that had gone crazy.

Would you still advocate that "Americans should pay the price for X's crimes against humanity"?

Would you advocate for the collective punishment of Americans, including those who abhor and hate X's actions (and who even attempted to resist X)?

This is the problem with collective punishments. QED

[0] Keep in mind the extreme difficulty of revolting against a government that has the most technologically-advanced military in the world.

[YetAnotherNick]

Yes, I would say that that US should be blamed. As a country, the leader represents the people unless it has been forced like North Korea. For all we know Palestinians had power to replace Hamas if they didn't liked them. If someone blames Americans for say Vietnam war, it isn't undeserved even though not all Americans supported it.

There is basically no other option if you think about it. Either we should be fine palestianians choosing Hamas or we can force Palestians to not have a choice in leadership. Second is more violent but that is what is done now.