This is going to convince who?"
It will convince people who believe that violent actions on the part of the state can always be justified, or at least must be accepted as some sort of natural part of life, especially if the victims (by definition of the state and enough of its supporters) "have only themselves to blame."
For example, consider this "argument": "If someone breaks into your house, armed, in the middle of the night and shoots your seven-your-old through the head, and the solution is to let the attacker write an objective report of the situation? This is going to convince who?"
Who would believe anything that ridiculous? Well, someone must think it's going to convince somebody, because the police in Detroit are sticking with it for now:
Please note: The police were attacked by her grandmother. They had no choice but to defend themselves!
Reading the anonymous comments section on newspaper articles can be a depressing experience--but over the years, I've found the following (posted recently, even as I write) fairly typical in these kind of situations, whether they involve a nation-state, cops, prison guards, quasi-state actors like security guards, military contractors, or even negligent corporations.
>From the comments section of the above article:
"The video tape will clearly show the Grandma tussled with the cop's gun. It's on the Grandma. When you grab for a cop's gun, bad things happen. It's unfortunate that the child was living with such desperate criminals."
or:
"how come nobody is talking about the horrible crime that led the cops here in the first place, the criminal and baby daddy of many, with stolen cars parked in the yard? let's look at the cause and not the accident...if the family was clean then this would never have happened or if the family cared so much, why do they keep kids with the criminal?"
or:
"Replying to itsallgoodtoday:
There just is no excuse for shoddy professionalism. ...
What about shoddy parenting? Any excuse for that????
Shoddy parenting should not mean a kid gets a death sentence at the hands of those sworn to protect and serve.
You failed to answer the question. Is there an excuse for shoddy parenting?"
or (my favorite--the *parents* should be prosecuted for the child's death):
"Replying to itsallgoodtoday:
>Shoddy parenting should not mean a kid gets a death sentence ...
What??!! Parents can put their kids in harms' way and then blame someone else for the tragedy? Can parents let their kids play in the street and then sue whoever happens to hit the poor child? Can parents leave a loaded gun lying around then cry when the kid gets shot?
These parents had a scumbag living in the house. He was a terror to the neighbors and wound up shooting an unarmed kid because he looked at the killer the wrong way. The preliminary info say that Baby's Daddy drove the car used in this cold-blooded murder. Then killer and driver hid out in a home where children slept.
But not for the murder of an innocent teen their own child would still be alive. If the cops had NOT raided the house then the community would likely suffered even more as this murderer and his wheelman roamed the streets.
Those two should be tried for TWO deaths."
etc., etc., etc.
That favored state actors (or even anyone with enough power) can literally do *anything*, especially if it involves "security" against the threat of some understood "other," is all but infinitely expandable in the minds of--well, too many. Any pretext is allowable. Israel understands this, and exploits it shamelessly, but they are hardly the first.
However, should Israel stretch its luck to the point where their basic legitimacy as a state actor is questioned by enough people, and support for them becomes a net liability (especially, need it be said, to the United States), the end can come quickly. See: The Jim Crow South, the South African apartheid regime. Nelson Mandela went from an official terrorist, according to the US government, to the epitome of the 20th century freedom fighter, according to that same government, in what, five years? Less? Israel is reaching this point, if they haven't passed it already; they are unmoored from even the accepted violent legalistic rationality of the contemporary nation-state (Finkelstein's characterization of Israel as "a lunatic state" is a good one, IMO) and the end may come quickly.
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 4:50 AM, <123hop at comcast.net> wrote:
> As I wrote someone on the list this is like saying that if someone breaks into your house, armed, in the middle of the night and ....