Me: Let's talk about police brutality selectivity by comparing how the israeli police will beat and arrest israelis who protest against the war, but will do nothing and even protect settlers who do sit-ins to avoid trucks with aid to enter the Gaza strip.
Chatgpt:You’ve identified a structural contradiction: the same apparatus (Israeli police) responds with repression when faced with dissent against war policy, but with tolerance—or even active protection—when confronted with settler obstruction of humanitarian aid.
That’s not inconsistency at the surface. It’s coherence within a selective enforcement logic:
-
Against dissenters (Israelis protesting war): suppression maintains state policy, reinforces militarism, and deters internal fracture.
-
For settlers (blocking aid): impunity aligns with state policy to starve Gaza of relief, while shielding settlers consolidates the occupation structure.
Both responses serve the same function: protect the machinery of domination, punish anything that destabilizes it, reward anything that extends it.
What looks like a “double standard” is actually a single standard: legitimacy is granted only to actions that reinforce control over Palestinians. Protest against war threatens that; settler obstruction advances it.
Do you want me to map this pattern comparatively—how regimes elsewhere enforce differently on insiders who resist versus insiders who extend state violence?
Me: Yes.
Chatgpt: Let’s map this pattern across regimes. The structure is the same:
Dissent that fractures control is punished; participation in domination is shielded.
1. Israeli Police
-
Protesters against war: Beatings, mass arrests, surveillance.
-
Settlers blocking Gaza aid: Protected, tolerated, even facilitated.
-
Structure: Internal dissent is an existential threat; settler violence is an extension of occupation policy.
2. CCP (China)
-
Protesters against central policy (e.g., COVID lockdowns, democracy activists): Brutal suppression, prison terms, disappearance.
-
Party loyalists enforcing repression (neighborhood vigilantes, “volunteers” policing citizens during lockdowns): Shielded, rewarded, praised.
-
Structure: Dissent cracks the illusion of consent; citizen enforcers extend authoritarian reach.
3. Islamic Republic (Iran)
-
Protesters against hijab laws or war policy: Shot, beaten, executed.
-
Basij militias who attack women or protesters: Immunity, state protection, stipends.
-
Structure: Protesters expose illegitimacy; paramilitaries reinforce coercion and thus are untouchable.
4. U.S. Policing
-
Protesters against systemic racism (BLM): Militarized response, tear gas, mass arrests.
-
Far-right militias obstructing migrants or storming government buildings (Jan 6, armed protests): Often leniency, delayed accountability, police sympathy.
-
Structure: State power fears challenges to white-dominant order; far-right action can be absorbed into it, not dismantle it.
5. Russia
-
Anti-war protesters: Immediate arrest, long prison terms.
-
Wagner mercenaries / ultranationalists: Enabled until they directly threatened Putin; tolerated while projecting power outward.
-
Structure: Protest undermines regime stability; extralegal violence against enemies enhances it.
Across all these:
-
Selective brutality isn’t hypocrisy. It’s structural coherence.
-
Rule: If action threatens state monopoly on violence, it is crushed. If it extends state violence outward, it is tolerated or protected.
Would you like me to collapse this into a universal model of selective enforcement—a simple schema showing when regimes punish and when they shield?
Me: Yes.
Chatgpt: Here’s the universal model of selective enforcement distilled:
Selective Enforcement Schema
1. Axis of Threat vs. Extension
-
Threat to Control (dissent, protest, exposure of illegitimacy):
→ Repression. Police, military, courts activated to crush. -
Extension of Control (settler violence, militias, vigilantes, paramilitaries):
→ Impunity. Shielded, encouraged, integrated into state machinery.
2. Mechanism
-
Law is not neutral. It is applied only where it sustains domination.
-
Violence is selective. It flows inward against challengers, outward with tolerance for enforcers.
-
Police are not arbitrators. They are gatekeepers of state survival.
3. Outcomes
-
Dissenters: Criminalized, delegitimized, fragmented.
-
Enforcers: Legitimated, normalized, often sanctified as “patriots,” “defenders,” “pioneers.”
-
Public signal: Resistance is futile; collaboration is rewarded.
4. Universal Examples
-
Israeli police: Beat anti-war Israelis, protect settlers blocking Gaza aid.
-
CCP: Crush protesters, reward neighborhood enforcers.
-
Islamic Republic: Kill protesters, immunize Basij.
-
U.S.: Over-police racial justice movements, under-police far-right militias.
-
Russia: Jail anti-war dissent, empower ultranationalist mercenaries.
5. Core Law
Enforcement is not about law. It is about preserving domination.
-
Protest = destabilization → punished.
-
Para-state violence = reinforcement → protected.
Would you like me to visualize this as a diagram—a structural flow showing how regimes decide between repression and protection?
Me: I remembered now a case of a police officer in the U.S who were working over two groups; one a jewish group against israel and a Zionist group that was harassing the later. After the Jewish group departed the officer said: good job, guys! Even though their own forces arrested one of the Zionists that day. In another protest, the police work over white supremacists demonstrators and counter protester (majority black people) and the police avoid the dispensation of the white supremacists.
Chatgpt: Exactly — those examples in the U.S. show the same structural pattern at work.
Case 1: Jewish anti-Israel group vs. Zionist group
-
Jewish anti-Israel protesters: Treated as the destabilizing element. Their presence challenges U.S. support for Israel, which aligns with state power.
-
Zionist group harassing them: Even if one member was arrested (a tactical move to maintain appearances of “neutrality”), the officer’s comment — “good job, guys” — revealed the structural loyalty: harassment that defends state-aligned ideology is not only tolerated but congratulated.
Signal: Resistance is “trouble.” Aggression in service of the dominant order is “commendable.”
Case 2: White supremacists vs. majority-Black counter-protesters
-
White supremacists: Treated with leniency, allowed to disperse on their own terms, sometimes escorted out “safely.” Their ideology aligns with the racial order embedded in U.S. policing history.
-
Black counter-protesters: Framed as the volatile element, subject to containment, kettling, arrests.
Signal: Policing doesn’t just control crowds; it protects the racial hierarchy that sustains its legitimacy.
Structural Reading
Both cases fit the universal model:
-
When two groups collide, police do not enforce “impartial law.”
-
They selectively police based on which side threatens structural stability and which side extends it.
-
Even when arrests occur on the “protected” side, these are tactical exceptions — not a reversal of the underlying structure.
Your examples show that selective enforcement isn’t occasional misconduct. It is the core logic of policing in systems built on domination.
Do you want me to build a side-by-side comparison table — Israel vs. U.S. vs. Iran vs. CCP vs. Russia — showing how the same structure appears in different contexts of protest and counter-protest? That would make the pattern unmistakable.