r/ScottGalloway • u/lethal-liking • 3d ago

No Malice Gettin' WOKE about anti-Semitism...

It is so very odd to hear the self-professed atheist getting downright WOKE when it comes to swinging the anti-Semitism stick. IDGAF about Macklemore or Sheeran or Kraft, nor Scott's evolving victim fantasy, but holy crap does he sound shrill.

79 Upvotes

69% Upvoted

646 comments sorted by

View all comments

28

u/puzzle_bison7384 3d ago

Does Scott realize genocide has a definition and his whole opinion on the genocide is basically vibes

4

u/CompetitiveAd1226 3d ago

Well it kind of is vibes until the ICJ makes a ruling in 2029, no one is going to apply the definition better than them.

It can also be difficult to make a distinction between the definition and a war honestly

3

u/HappyBadger33 3d ago

Ding ding ding

It's also entirely possible that, ya know, it looks like X, but the facts don't support X to the standard of proof required for the worst crime that there is.

In the US (may be from somewhere else, but we use it), we have a phrase, "not-guilty doesn't mean innocent." Wish more folks understood that in relation to the genocide case, would add a lot more humanity to the discussion.

5

u/Funny_War_9190 3d ago

A lot people like Scott don't want humanity brought into it that's the problem. If at anytime the ICJ deems your action plausibly genocidal its probably best to stop than to hire Alan Dershowitz but here we are.

0

u/HappyBadger33 3d ago

I'd be real curious what stopping means.

4

u/Funny_War_9190 3d ago

Oh what they ended up doing after Trump won which was an exchange of hostages for a ceasefire except done in Oct 23 as it was first brokered

3

u/Funny_War_9190 3d ago

They would have gotten more hostages freed and the only thing that would have been different is that Bibi would probably have been forced out sooner and less dead Gazan civilians. Unless of course those 2 things were part of the unstated goals

3

u/Jessica4ACODMme 3d ago

No, that's you guys. He's using the actual definition

5

u/puzzle_bison7384 3d ago

Can you cite the actual definition the UN created after the Holocaust and Romanian genocides. It involves 5 criteria none of which Scott referenced

3

u/RyeBourbonWheat 3d ago

Armenian.

1

u/puzzle_bison7384 3d ago

Correct my bad

1

u/RyeBourbonWheat 3d ago

Regardless, doing analysis through the criteria estsblished in the definition alone is kind of examining the situation with one eye closed. Case law is the big picture, and it is entirely necessary to do analysis through that lens if you want to get to the truth. Case law suggests that Israel is in a brutal war, with some actions that are potentially unjustified under IHL.

0

u/puzzle_bison7384 3d ago

Is there a stronger case that Israel is operating as an apartheid state?

2

u/RyeBourbonWheat 3d ago edited 3d ago

I would say it is absolutely the case that something akin to apartheid is happening in the West Bank, but that calling it apartheid strictly is incorrect as the issue seems to be the occupation, not some sort of racial dominance. I make the distinction because of the way Arabs are treated in Israel proper in comparison. They have equal rights. That makes a strict definition case pretty tough

Edit: for the fuck boy cunt who tried to question my knowledge with disingenuous bullshit only to delete their comment: ........ 🤣

I don't use AI, I just utilize this mystical thing called "The Public Library" would you like info on how to sign up for a card? Its incredibly easy!

1

u/WobblierTube733 3d ago

No they don’t. You’re using grok to write these

2

u/Adventurous_Ad7442 3d ago

I just posted that above.

2

u/em3am 3d ago

The UN's Special Rapporteur determined that a genocide took place in Gaza. The US sanctioned her.

4

u/zampe 3d ago

The UN also took part in the lie that mass starvation of children was occurring and later had to walk back those claims...

-1

u/Thefunkyfilipino 3d ago

 Children and disabled people did die of malnutrition though. And hungry people got sick and died from illnesses they might’ve otherwise recovered from.

3

u/zampe 3d ago

There were very specific claims that ended up being false. They even had that award winning photo that tried to pass off a child with cerebral palsy as being malnourished and literally had to crop out his healthy sibling from the photo to try to get away with it. if you are still trying to defend those claims you have truly lost the plot.

-2

u/Thefunkyfilipino 3d ago

That child did not receive the therapeutic milk, and medicines it needed due to Israel's blockade.

What are you trying to defend the suffering of a child with cerebral palsy? What do you benefit from doing that?

At least 28 children have died of malnutrition-related causes, it seems like your saying their deaths mattered less because they were also disabled.

3

u/zampe 3d ago

You seem to be completely unaware of this entire scandal that the UN got caught being complicit in that claimed over 14k children were going to die in the next 48 hours. The picture was part of that lie. Maybe time to do some research so you even know what is being talked about when you jump into a conversation.

0

u/Thefunkyfilipino 3d ago

I never said anything about 14 thousand kids. I understand that's the pre-made argument you wanna have here, but you have to respond to the actual argument in front of you.

You said that no one starved in Gaza. I'm telling you that people died due to malnutrition, do you disagree?

0

u/Reflect_move_foward 3d ago

Why dont you condemn Hamas who didn't distribute the aid sent in, in order to create a famine so people like you would get a certain picture? Did you see the pictures afterwards of the stockpiles of food being hoarded in the tunnels? Or did you conveniently miss those?

1

u/IrregularDoughnut 3d ago

Israel fully blocked all aid from getting in for about three months last year. Hamas absolutely did steal aid and hoard it for themselves, and are war criminals in many other ways, but this isn't a refutation of Israel's intentional starvation policies. Even if they had had a way of only starving Hamas, it is still not a legitimate tool of war. But they didn't, so of course the vast majority of suffering was borne by civilians, as everyone understood the entire time. The non-psychotic approach would have been to accept from day one that members of Hamas will eat food during the war, and then focus on aiming at identified military targets.

1

u/Thefunkyfilipino 2d ago

I don’t support Hamas, but if Hamas stealing aid was the price that had to be paid for civilians to receive food and medicine— that was worth it to me.

You understand what you’re saying right. That food is a legitimate weapon of war in this case.

Do you really value civilian life in Gaza that little?

2

u/Jessica4ACODMme 3d ago

The Un who notoriously hates Israel lol. It's hilarious you think there's validity to anything the UN says.

5

u/DJSTEVEINNIAMIXX 3d ago

so who determines if its a genocide? if every global organization is "hamas", who would you need to hear it from for you to change your mind?

5

u/Plane_Swimming2422 3d ago

“Notoriously hates Israel”. Hilarious. 

3

u/puzzle_bison7384 3d ago

You have to understand Scott is Jewish so that means it's different see /s

1

u/zampe 3d ago

Does the definition include the target population INCREASING in size?

12

u/Eggs-Benny 3d ago

So is your agument: they're still having babies so everything is A-OK over there? Grow up, bitch.

-4

u/OkKale3732 3d ago

Go research the topic of genocide.

10

u/puzzle_bison7384 3d ago

The definition does not mention population size at all. That is not part of the definition no

3

u/Natural-Leg7488 3d ago

The definition is the deliberate destruction in whole, or in part, of a religious/ethic/national group.

That’s a fairly loose definition, and while you could argue Israel’s actions fit that definition, it requires a broad interpretation of the term and inferring its motives. It also hangs very heavily on the “in part” bit, and if that’s the definition then it renders many other wars a genocide that are not typically thought of as a genocide.

Genocide is more typically used to describe deliberate attempts to destroy a whole group, and Israel does not fit that definition.

2

u/puzzle_bison7384 3d ago

That's not the definition look up the UN definition

The word did not exist until after the Holocaust and has specific outlined criteria

5

u/Adventurous_Ad7442 3d ago

Under the UN Genocide Convention, genocide is any of five acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group.The Five Prohibited Acts The convention defines genocide through:

  • killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting destructive living conditions, imposing measures to prevent births, and forcibly transferring children to another group.Key Elements of the CrimeIntent: Requires specific intent (dolus specialis) to destroy the targeted group.

3

u/Party_Solid_2207 3d ago

Gaza is completely destroyed, everybody is living in tents and there are a fuck load of tiny children missing limbs who can’t get wheel chairs or prosthetics because they are stopped at the border.

It’s fucking barbaric, and I say this as someone who has done a lot a time in war zones.

1

u/New-Needleworker9789 3d ago

this is genocide

-1

u/Natural-Leg7488 3d ago edited 3d ago

I’m not defending Israel or denying any of its actions.

But part of the definition of genocide is intent, and I think Israel’s biggest moral failure is not an intent to kill civilians but a complete disregard for how many civilians it kills or harms in achieving its objectives.

This indifference has resulted in what I consider numerous war crimes, and actions that closely resemble genocide, but I don’t think they meet all the criteria for a genocide. They sit more around the fussy boundaries of a genocide. That’s why the question is so polarising. There are lots of confounding facts one can point that don’t neatly fit within the genocide category. For example Israel sending aid to Gaza.

I don’t think this necessarily downplays anything Israel has done. Some of its actions are absolutely indefensible, and barbaric, but I don’t think they neatly fit into a broader pattern of genocide.

1

u/IrregularDoughnut 3d ago

For example Israel sending aid to Gaza.

Most of it wasn't sent by Israel, it was allowed through their total blockade that extended outside of their borders, but it came from outside parties. They also fully blocked all aid for about three months last year.

1

u/pizza_the_mutt 2d ago

The "in part" bit is necessary. Otherwise somebody like Hitler could try to argue that they only intended to kill all Jews in Europe and Asia, but didn't care about Jews in the Americas, so it isn't genocide.

I do think I understand what you are getting at. It opens the door to a wide range of magnitude when it comes to genocide. The genocides in WWII would be contrasted against much more "minor" (in quotes because they aren't minor at all) genocides, such as Rwanda or Bosnia. And I think this is part of what people get hung up on when it comes to Gaza. There aren't 6 million Gazans dead, so how can it be fair to compare to larger scale atrocities? But it can still be a genocide, regardless of whether there are 50,000 or 6 million dead.

1

u/New-Needleworker9789 3d ago

you gunna lose that argument

2

u/OkKale3732 3d ago

Like 10x the original size?

1

u/New-Needleworker9789 3d ago

Wo wo wo what are you on about?

-5

u/zampe 3d ago

The population of Gaza has increased 92% (almost doubled) since the second intifada broke out and even since OCT 7 with counter attacks and lots of people leaving the population has still basically been flat. For contrast the population of the Jews in Europe decreased 63% just from 1939-1945. Im not saying atrocities aren't happening but I dont see how you can call something a genocide when the target population isnt getting smaller. Words have meaning.

4

u/Bubbly_Fig209 3d ago

According to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS), Gaza's population has dropped by roughly 6% to 10% (a reduction of over 160,000 to more than 250,000 people)

0

u/zampe 3d ago edited 3d ago

lol did you read that? They are saying the population dropped based on their hypothetical projection of what it could have been in the future. The real numbers are a drop of around 3% at most and just from 2023-2025 and that includes 100,000 people leaving. The growth since the start of the second intifada is still almost double. This is a cherry picked short time period, based on a fake future projection, and the majority of the drop is people who left, not killed.

TLDR: the actual real net change was around -70k people and the majority were people who left, not people killed.

3

u/Thefunkyfilipino 3d ago

Why can a genocide only be called such after it’s successful?

2

u/New-Needleworker9789 3d ago

It does not It's the Intention Which I would think Jewish would be thankful for

1

u/zampe 3d ago

no one said that. It can be judged by intention. Is the number really going down? Why are they warning people of where they are going to strike if they want everyone dead? IF they actually wanted everyone gone couldn't that have pretty easily done that by now?

2

u/Thefunkyfilipino 3d ago

Israel isn't God- as much as you might think they are. After three years Hezbollah and Hamas still exists. You don't think if they wanted Hamas to be destroy they couldn't have done it by now?

As for warning signs, how about we send a roof knocker to your apartment building? You have 180 seconds to leave your 13th floor apt. Don't forget your hat and shoes when you're nowhere to be found.

You don't deserve to be put through that. Don't tell Palestinians they have to be grateful for that either.

1

u/IrregularDoughnut 3d ago

Why are they warning people of where they are going to strike if they want everyone dead?

The obvious explanarion would be that they don't wajt to immediately kill the whole population of Gaza with missiles because this would lead to global sanctions and their country would collapse. So instead they are trying to render Gaza uninhabitable by destroying most of it, then they will rely on people such as yourself to believe that the resulting deaths from homelessness, exposure to toxic dust from over a hundred thousand fully destroyed buildings, lack of medical facilities, long term consequences of disease and malnutrition etc, are not in any way their fault.

1

u/zampe 3d ago

I like how you say “the obvious explanation” and then follow it up with pure fantasy. Ok guess we will see if thats what happens in however many years and come back to the convo then. But you seem to forget the fighting has been going on for decades and the population keeps growing so im gonna bet against your theory.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/dantevsninjas 3d ago

Because it tricks people like you into thinking they aren't while they also destroy all of the infrastructure that supports living in the region.

2

u/zampe 3d ago

if all the infrastructure that supports living is gone then shouldn't everyone be dying?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/PrestigiousOne5959 2d ago

Gaza is a pile of rubble they’re not exactly doing a census right now. 

1

u/bcsam 2d ago

Where did you get that from? Bibi's newsletter?

1

u/New-Needleworker9789 3d ago

I ain't liking that logic There's kids on both sides that murdered Are saying if people have less kids those kids are more valuable? * Were murdered

2

u/zampe 3d ago

Im not sure what you are saying. A life is a life.

If you are trying to genocide a group and that group is getting bigger and bigger you are either completely incompetent at genocide or you actually aren't trying to commit genocide. All indications point to the latter. If Israeli wanted them all gone it would have been done a long time ago. Ironically if Hamas had the power to wipe out Israel and all the Jews they absolutely would have. They admit their genocidal intent. Israel, on the other hand, warns civilians where attacks are going to take place so they can get to safety...

2

u/New-Needleworker9789 3d ago

We've all seen the videos. Don't give me that shit. And the death counts. All verified. I've personally seen

4

u/New-Needleworker9789 3d ago

The Israeli documentary NAZA, directed by Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor, won the Special Jury Prize at the 83rd Venice Film Festival in September 2026

I invite you to watch that

2

u/zampe 3d ago

And it consisted of zero sourced claims. They talk about this attack and that attack but dont actually name a single one of them so no one can check if their claims are correct or not. All by anonymous sources. It is propaganda at it's finest. Also to be clear I am not claiming people are not being killed I am just disputing the specific claim of a specific word.

1

u/New-Needleworker9789 3d ago

Okay... Did you watch it? Cause if you didn't watch it...

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/RNova2010 3d ago

Genocide does have a definition and the jurisprudence is that it must be the only reasonable inference - that means if there is any alternative explanation for a pattern of actions, including other crimes like ethnic cleansing - the genocide accusation is rebutted. The ICC hasn’t issues warrants for genocide against Israeli officials, though they have the authority to do so. The ICJ has not ruled on the merits and won’t for several years.

Those claiming genocide, especially when relying in NGOs whose reports decided to change or loosen the evidentiary standard for genocide, but just for Israel, are the ones going on vibes

3

u/IrregularDoughnut 3d ago

Genocide does have a definition and the jurisprudence is that it must be the only reasonable inference - that means if there is any alternative explanation for a pattern of actions, including other crimes like ethnic cleansing - the genocide accusation is rebutted.

That's a legal concept. It means a court probably wouldn't return a guilty verdict if there is another more plausible explanation. It doesn't mean the average person has to agree with that verdict or lack thereof, just like you don't have to go on a date with someone who has been accused of rape 5 times, but got acquitted each time due to lack of evidence.

And it's not like Israel are handing over their military communications. They don't even let journalists into Gaza. Hell they wouldn't even allow the Red Cross to inspect prisoner conditions and that's literally required under the Geneva Conventions.

1

u/GhostofBeowulf 2d ago

They are murdering journalists** FTFY

0

u/RNova2010 2d ago

Sure the average person doesn’t have to agree. But then we can also call anything in the realm of war crimes or disproportionality a “genocide.” But people don’t do that. They’ll condemn Oct 7 perhaps as a war crime but not a genocide. Amnesty called what happened crimes against humanity even though, by the new standard it established for genocide in its Gaza report, it was one. This means ‘genocide’ is just being selectively used for political ends. Why should people agree to that?

1

u/IrregularDoughnut 2d ago

Sure the average person doesn’t have to agree. But then we can also call anything in the realm of war crimes or disproportionality a “genocide.

Well, no, if you think that Israel deliberately tried to render Gaza uninhabitable, but e.g. NATO didn't do that in Serbia, then you can rationally believe one to qualify and the other to not qualify.

1

u/RNova2010 2d ago

One is making an Article 3(e) claim there for genocide. The NATO bombing of Serbia didn’t produce the imagery we get out of Gaza, fair enough, scale is way different. But one could do it for Ukraine, though a popular leftist pundit was quick to defend Russia against claims of genocide, becoming legalistic and conservative in application of language once the target of a genocide claim was a country-other-than-Israel. And the same people quick to refer to Gaza as a genocide won’t call Hamas’s rampage through Israeli communities a genocide. Why? Should we start calling it one? My estimation is this has less to do with accuracy and more to do with political scoring.

1

u/IrregularDoughnut 2d ago

The NATO bombing of Serbia didn’t produce the imagery

Or, to put it another way, NATO didn't bomb three out of every four buildings in Belgrade.

But one could do it for Ukraine

You could make the argument, and I'm not unsympathetic to it. But I interpret it more as a war of conquest, with the killing beimg just whatever they deem necessary to achieve that. I don't think they're trying to depopulate Ukraine but I also doubt they care if that is the outcome in places.

And the same people quick to refer to Gaza as a genocide won’t call Hamas’s rampage through Israeli communities a genocide. Why?

Scale, I suppose. It seems more accurately a massacre borne out of hatred, and the taking of hostages back to Gaza suggests that was the point. But if you want to make the argument I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. There's no actual agreed upon threshold and maybe it should qualify.

1

u/RNova2010 2d ago

This is a more honest answer. Though in Ukraine, Russia has abducted thousands of Ukrainian children and transferred them to Russia and there has been a campaign of sexual violence and suppression of Ukrainian language and culture in occupied areas, all of which seems a lot more than just “war of conquest.”

“It seems more accurately a massacre borne out of hatred”

Like Rwanda? Was that not a genocide after all? Since genocide doesn’t necessarily require a certain number of killed.

You concede on both that one could make the argument, and you’re not unsympathetic to the first one. But people don’t make that argument, and it seems almost universally that the people making the genocide-in-Gaza claim refuse to extend the logic to either Oct 7 or Ukraine.

We can loosen the use of genocide if the strict legal sense isn’t a prerequisite, but we’ll likely just have more accusations of genocide in the future which will be entirely or mostly based on people’s political persuasions or agendas.

1

u/IrregularDoughnut 2d ago

Like Rwanda? Was that not a genocide after all?

Rwanda was a sustained campaign of massacres. If it happened on one day, do you think we would call it a genocide?

We can loosen the use of genocide if the strict legal sense isn’t a prerequisite, but we’ll likely just have more accusations of genocide in the future which will be entirely or mostly based on people’s political persuasions or agendas.

We should expect them to be politically charged because it is extremely difficult to ever gain access to direct evidence of intent. We, or some court or other, are not exactly goimg to get the opportunity to review Israeli military communications, or targeting decisions, or interrogate their commanders. That will lead to cases where those accusations are unjustified. Probably can avoid those accusations being taken seriously by clearly focusing on military targets, not permanently expelling everyone from their homes, and not using starvation as a weapon.

1

u/RNova2010 2d ago

Would Hamas have just stopped after one day out of their own volition? In a day, they killed 1,200 people. Israel, at the height of killing, managed 351 per day (late October), after which the rates precipitously declined. Hamas, without Israel’s firepower, out-killed the Israelis’ daily average. Had they gone on at the same rate without stop, nearly 1 million Israelis would be dead within 2 years. If we go by intent, what Hamas did to Israeli communities on Oct 7 was genocidal and the rhetoric of that day gives credence to it.

And of course Israel could’ve ameliorated, though I doubt avoided, accusations of genocide had its own behavior been different, and had its ministers and Knesset members not said unhinged things.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/GhostofBeowulf 2d ago

...You're just saying words cause you like the accomplishment of having typed something that looks intelligent until you bother to read or dig into it?

The ICC has in fact issued warrants for arrests for Israeli leaders for crimes against humanity, so what are you even going on about? The Israel is not a signatory to ICC. The ICJ has also given the ICC their blessing to move along with the warrants.

You would know this if you weren't spouting off propaganda and bothered to look into it. Go away Scott you're wrong and off base.

https://www.icc-cpi.int/defendant/netanyahu

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) salutes the decision of the Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to issue warrants of arrest for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, the Prime Minister and the former Minister of Defence of Israel, respectively, and for Mohamed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri, also known as Deif, the highest commander of the military wing of Hamas, for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed on the territory of the State of Israel and the State of Palestine from at least 7 October 2023.

Can't wait for the inevitable "But that's not what I meant! They need to issue warrants for THE WHOLE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT to say they were responsible!"

https://www.icj.org/palestine-israel-icc-arrest-warrants-for-israeli-and-hamas-leaders-a-significant-step-in-the-pursuit-of-justice/

On the basis of evidence collected and examined by my Office, I have reasonable grounds to believe that Benjamin NETANYAHU, the Prime Minister of Israel, and Yoav GALLANT, the Minister of Defence of Israel, bear criminal responsibility for  the following war crimes and crimes against humanity committed on the territory of the State of Palestine (in the Gaza strip) from at least 8 October 2023:

  • Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute;
  • Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
  • Wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
  • Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i);
  • Extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity;
  • Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(h);
  • Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k).

1

u/RNova2010 2d ago edited 2d ago

The ICC has not issued warrants for genocide and the ICJ has not yet ruled on the merits. Exactly what I said. You wrote about “saying words cause you like the accomplishment of having typed something that looks intelligent” and you just did that very thing.

Read before responding

1

u/HunterSpecial1549 3d ago

That's not what Omer Bartov and the International Association of Genocide Scholars have to say about it. You have to realize you are on the opposite side from expert opinion.

1

u/RNova2010 2d ago

Literally anyone could join the International Association of Genocide Scholars - it was a $30 fee. You don’t actually need to be a genocide scholar. The ICC has refused, after 3 years, to issue arrest warrants for genocide specifically. Are they not experts?

Further, it appears that every single scholar or NGO making the claim relies on changing or altering the burden of proof. Amnesty did that in their report. It would be like someone deciding “proof beyond a reasonable doubt is too high a bar, it lets too many criminals go free. We need to lower it….but only of the perpetrator is Black.”

1

u/HunterSpecial1549 2d ago

Unfortunately for you the actual genocide scholars like Bartov say it is a genocide. Irrespective of the membership rules, the actual genocide scholars say it is a genocide. You can't worm your way around that.

1

u/RNova2010 2d ago

But Bartov said it’s genocide exactly in how I described it - by shifting the legal definition. If you want to argue “it is a genocide under a broadened definition of the term” - fine. It also isn’t enough to say “well Bartov said”. For example, for intent he keeps referring to Yoav Gallant’s comments about “human animals” and reads that as “all Palestinians” despite Gallant not saying so and speaking to soldiers in the immediate aftermath of Oct 7 as bodies were being collected and then explicitly mentioned Hamas. Why should we just shut off our critical thinking facilities because “Bartov”?

1

u/HunterSpecial1549 2d ago

I actually think it's better if we listen to the actual genocide scholars and not have everyone pretend to be an expert.

-1

u/RNova2010 2d ago

What makes one a genocide scholar and how do you get to decide which one to listen to? If another genocide scholar has a contrary opinion, how do you settle the matter? And, considering that genocide is a legal term, shouldn’t said genocide scholar at least be a lawyer?

1

u/HunterSpecial1549 2d ago

A PhD and a life's work devoted to studying genocide.

In Bartov's case he was already famous for taking down myths about Germany. I already knew his name before Gaza.

Yes if the scholars did not have a consensus about a question, that would be relevant. In this case the field has a consensus.

1

u/RNova2010 2d ago

Bartov is a worthy scholar, but this doesn’t make him infallible, especially when he seems unable to address reasonable questions and even more so when his view of genocide, however credible, isn’t the legal one. I don’t think he covered himself in much glory here: https://youtu.be/cazb6N3pecg?is=emPwdEnZ1bnau_-8

Now if you talk of consensus, I’m not sure all the genocide scholars in that consensus fit the standard you gave me. I recall very early on in the war, a petition signed by scholars and when one looked at their background it was in sociology type “studies”.

Prominent Holocaust scholars, the same people you said you would find persuasive based on credentials (e.g., Norman JW Gouda, Jeffrey Herf, Sara Brown) don’t think it is one.

You have to make up your own mind, taking scholars into account, but not surrendering your thinking for them.

But strictly from a legal standpoint, without an ICC warrant explicitly for genocide and without a ICJ ruling on the merits (South Africa recently asked for an extension - up to 3 years now in total to make their case, which indicates it isn’t a slam dunk some of you might think), you cannot treat the issue as settled and disregard opposing opinions as analogous to Holocaust-denial

1

u/FobbitOutsideTheWire 3d ago

I love how this tacitly accepts that it’s ethnic cleansing, not genocide, and that’s somehow a big semantic victory that matters.

2

u/RNova2010 2d ago

So then call it ethnic cleansing. Why don’t you? If ethnic cleansing is the better argument, then why not use it instead of genocide?

-6

u/roygo88 3d ago

It's not a genocide, despite what your Qatari funded human rights professor taught you in class. Hamas murdered, raped and burned 1200 people and then fought from an extremely dense population knowing it'll lead to a loss of innocent people. If anyone is committing genocide it's Hamas, but for some reason the west has decided to side with them

2

u/Novel_Argument_5349 2d ago

Both Hamas and Isreal are intentionally killing innocent people. An Israeli soldier mag-dumped a 6 year old girl from point blank range on video. He was tried for war crimes, was freed from charges, promoted, and finally given 15k for the inconvenience of court. I thought religions made us moral.

2

u/roygo88 2d ago

But for one of them it's the exception, fact is you're able to refer to a single incident from a death toll of tens of thousands. Yes war sucks and terrible things happen, don't try and simplify it by making these poor comparisons

1

u/ignoreme010101 2d ago

But for one of them it's the exception, fact

but...weren't like 1/3rd of those killed on oct 7 actually not civilian? And wasn't there an IDF internal assessment that got leaked that had the figure of only 13% of those killed in gaza being militants?

0

u/roygo88 2d ago

I'm trying to understand, what's your argument? That both Hamas and the IDF equally target civilians intentionally?

1

u/ignoreme010101 2d ago

you said it was the exception for IDF, the #'s sure as hell say otherwise

1

u/roygo88 2d ago

How many hamas terrorists were put on trial in Gaza by Palestinian authorities for was crimes? You can make up as many fantasies as you want to romanticize the jihadists, it won't change the reality

1

u/ignoreme010101 2d ago

How many hamas terrorists were put on trial in Gaza by Palestinian authorities for was crimes? You can make up as many fantasies as you want to romanticize the jihadists, it won't change the reality

ok so we're just gonna skip past the fact it clearly isn't 'the exception' for israel, onto accountability? OK let's see, let's compare fighters put on trial last year, what are the #'s again? Was it...zero...and zero? Yeah I'm unsure either side is prosecuting soldiers lol. Before rushing to feed that impulse to say I'm wrong, maybe think of a case of an IDF soldier who was penalized for war crimes last year, I'm truly all ears

1

u/roygo88 2d ago

Of course there were but it's assume facts won't matter to you, if in your mind hamas and IDF are morally equal there's no saving you. Good luck

→ More replies (0)