Picture this. You are a visitor to another planet where you are invited to sit in on an interview with an eminent professor, a writer and theorist with a secure reputation. She's talking about her opposition to violence, to the way in which the lives of some human beings are seen as 'expendable and unworthy of being grieved'. She pronounces herself a partisan of a universalist form of compassion, one that can cross 'cultural and geographical distance'. She thereby indicates an awareness on her part that her planet extends far beyond the boundaries of her own land.
But then you notice that her vision seems more restricted in a certain particular respect. Only two countries - Country A and Country I - are referred to by our professor as exemplars of the purveyors of violence, exemplars of the treatment of other lives as 'expendable and unworthy of being grieved'. That she only mentions two countries does not, of course, prove that she knows of no other countries that might be mentioned in the same connection. Still, Country A and Country I are the two she does keep referring to. And even when an obvious opportunity presents itself to focus on the violence of other countries or forces than Country A and Country I, she does not avail herself of it. Some recent violence by Country I, for example, was preceded by acts of violence against its inhabitants, acts well-documented, undeniable. The good professor skips over these as not sufficing to justify a plea of self-defence; but she doesn't expatiate on how they might nevertheless also fit a narrative of lives not regarded as grievable. Again, objecting to 'cynical uses of feminism for the waging of war', this proponent of a universalist compassion speaks of the 'the false construction of [a certain category of] women "in need of being saved"', but does not trouble to comment on whether any or much violence is ever perpetrated against the women in question, when there is no shortage of evidence, relative to the context being alluded to, that a certain amount of violence against them does indeed occur.
To repeat: that she doesn't say doesn't mean she doesn't know. But, as a visitor to her planet, you could well form the impression from this interview with her that the chief culprits of violence there are Country A and Country I.
Thus Judith Butler on violence and... well, you already know which two countries. Thus another of those many beneficiaries of Western liberal democracy seemingly convinced of its greater guilt and its supreme badness.