Volf on Innocent Victims

In these moments, as we struggle to come to grips with violence, both local and global, my thoughts return to Volf's "outrageous contention" that there are (almost) no innocent victims:

But what about the victims? Are not they innocent? No doubt, many a person has been violated at no fault of his or her own. Yet even if they are not to be blamed for the violation suffered, should we call them innocent? Let us assume that they were innocent before they were violated. Will they remain innocent after the act? Will they stay innocent as they are drawn into a conflict and as the conflict gathers in momentum? Some heroic souls might, but will the rest? Moreover, rather than entering conflicts at their inception, people often find themselves sucked into a long history of wrongdoing in which yesterday's victims are today's perpetrators and today's perpetrators tomorrow's victims. Is there innocence within such a history? With the horns of small and large social groups locked, will not the "innocent" be cast aside and proclaimed "guilty" precisely because they seek to be "innocent"? The fiercer the battle gets the more it is governed by the rule: "Whoever is not fighting with you is struggling against you." Can victims sustain innocence in a world of violence? [Exclusion and Embrace, 75-76].

Something in me revolts against this very analysis. However, I understand what he is after: among other things, the soiling effect of wanton violence consists in the fact that innocent people are sucked into cycles of rage, hatred, and vengefulness. This is not about blaming victims; it is about expanding the scope of harm that violence inflicts. I think.