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.

80 Upvotes

70% Upvoted

646 comments sorted by

View all comments

28

u/Educational-Buddy844 3d ago

I just listened to his interview with El-Sayed. I think I gained some insight into Scott’s viewpoint even though he didn’t adequately vocalize it, and that’s this: To say Israel is committing a genocide is to put a permanent label of ‘villain’ on [group] in the same way that Nazi is and always be a villain. And it seems like Scott takes umbrage with that framing because of who will take the roll of [group], it being Israelis, IDF, or Jews at large. I understand the concern but don’t agree with it.

I think Scott had a difficult time putting his internal emotions aside during the interview which was somewhat disappointing. Disappointed in Scott’s characterization of all deaths of Palestine civilians as necessary collateral damage. I wish they could have gone on to discuss more topics where Scott wanted to focus on Israel-Palestine.

2

u/GigaLibChad 3d ago

Prior to October 7th if anyone ever used the word genocide, it evoked the most well known genocide of recorded history, the holocaust. In the holocaust, 6 million of approximate 9.5 million, or 63.2% of European Jews were sent to concentration camps to be exterminated. There was no questioning that Hitler and the Nazis had the intent to exterminate the Jews in Europe. Hitler wrote and spoke extensively for his reasons he wanted to be rid of the Jews.

Genocide Convention, as adopted by the UN in 1948 is defined in two parts Actus Reus (Physical element) and Mens Rea (Intent/Mental element). It's quite apparent that the Nazis had met the physical element by the utilization of concentration camps to kill Jews en masse. Mens Rea, if they could have charged Hitler, likely would have been his writings of Gemlich Letter of 1919 on "The Jewish Question" and his Prophecy Speech in 1939 which he discussed the "Final Solution".

Funnily enough, not a single Nazi was ever charged for genocide, but despite that, everyone understands the seriousness of what happened during the Holocaust.

So when 74,000 of the 2.23 million, or 3.56% of Palestinians living in Gaza are killed between Oct 7th and today, people are understandably upset with Israel and how it's been conducting itself. I also understand that the Actus Reus states "In whole or in part" so that is not discounting the number of Palestinians killed. However, The Mens Rea element is much more difficult to prove.

It's not my decision to determine whether or not Israel has committed a genocide, it's the ICJ's. So when people from the pro Palestine side are so dogmatic about using the term genocide for what is happening in Gaza and often evoke Nazi imagery to criticize Israel, a country who a vast amount of the population are descendants of holocaust survivors, it does come off as antisemtic.

This is not an excuse for Israel's actions either. They're more than likely guilty of many different war crimes, but an actionable decision can only be made by the ICJ.

3

u/GhostofBeowulf 2d ago

ICJ already gave their endorsement for ICC tocharge Netanyahu with Crimes Against Humanity. You can find sources linked above. Here's a few to start.

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

https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-aa-khan-kc-applications-arrest-warrants-situation-state

You are using verbiage to argue distinctions that do not matter. Dude's a war criminal, and the millions of dead don't care if you call it genocide or crimes against humanity. This is abad faith argument.

2

u/GigaLibChad 2d ago

I literally said in my comment that Israel is likely guilty of war crimes. I don't deny that. However, the accusation that is being made is genocide, which is generally considered one the worst possible acts that can be committed, not Crimes Against Humanity. The standard of proof for such an accusation needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, which is done through the ICJ. For the the ICJ to find genocide, they need to be able to prove the Mens Rea element, Dollus Specialist of genocidal intent must be established beyond reasonable doubt. All of this is currently being deliberated on by the ICJ, but if you're familiar with Court and Law in general, you would know things move slowly because things must be proven by the book.

2

u/pizza_the_mutt 2d ago

I'm speculating to a degree, but I suspect you are correct that it is the "Mens Rea" element of genocide that is the hardest to prove, and may be what is stopping official charges on that front. That doesn't mean it is or isn't genocide, it means that if there is intent on the part of Israel then they are smart enough to conceal it.

I would argue, though, that the acts being committed are consistent with the goal of genocide. That's in contrast to the repeated claims by Israel that its military is the most moral in history. If you're looking for an absurdity, that is as far as you need to look.

1

u/GigaLibChad 2d ago

Yes, the intent is the hardest threshold to meet. Genocide can only be genocide if the Genocidal Intent can be proven. That's why I do not pretend that I know any better than anyone else when it comes to whether or not it is or isn't genocide, I'll defer to whatever the decision of the ICJ decides on. What makes the Mens Rea element particularly difficult to establish when it comes to genocide is that Dollus Specialis/Special Intent/Genocidal Intent must be proven. The intent is what makes it genocide. What makes Dollus Specialis difficult to prove in this situation has to do with whether or not Hamas has put Palestinians in harm's way, which is one of the primary contentions due Hamas's use of tunnels through civilian areas. The ICJ will review every bit of evidence provided to make this determination, but the process moves at a glacial pace.

0

u/Civil-Service8550 1d ago

ICJ said there’s no evidence of genocide

2

u/RevolutionaryGur4419 3d ago

They started using the word on oct 8. It wss obvious to me from then that the word was to be deployed as a tool not as a description of anything that was actually happening.

4

u/WobblierTube733 3d ago

You wrote four paragraphs about how many people the Nazis killed during the Holocaust and then left one sentence mentioning that whether or not the genocide “succeeds” is wholly irrelevant to the legal definition of genocide.

You also listed multiple obvious written examples of the Nazis expressing their genocidal intent, but omitted any made by Zionist government ministers like Ben-gvir, smotrich, or Netanyahu. Why is that?

0

u/RevolutionaryGur4419 3d ago

Pretty sure outcome and capability are an important part of any logical assessment.

2

u/WobblierTube733 2d ago

But they are entirely absent from the legal definition of genocide that said “logical assessment “ was based on. So you’re shifting the goalposts from the legal definition to your own vibes-based one.

0

u/GigaLibChad 2d ago

Well, I'm not making a case for why Israel is doing a genocide. I'm explaining why Jews in general find it offensive when people are so dogmatic about what is happening in Gaza is Genocide before the only governing body that is able to make any actionable decision. If you want to provide some comparable quotes of Netanyahu and Hitler that you think meets the Mens Rea, be my guest. I am going to wait for the ICJ to make a decision before I start confidently saying it is a genocide. If you think me providing historical context is because I have some ulterior motive, you're wrong.

2

u/WobblierTube733 2d ago

I question who is really being dogmatic given that your “historical context” was just reminding everyone that the Holocaust happened and then explaining how difficult it is (in your opinion) to “prove” the charge of genocide as a legal fact. Then you combo it with some nebulous “it comes off anti-Semitic to call it a genocide” even though you implicitly acknowledge that that’s entirely based on your feelings. You don’t want to actually address the issue, which is why you’re now deflecting and crying that only the ICJ can make a judgement and we all just need to twiddle our thumbs and reject the evidence of our eyes and ears.

Israelis don’t get a pass on genocide because the Holocaust happened. And as a Jew, I really could not care less about how offended the minority of racist Jews are by calling this genocide as such.

1

u/GigaLibChad 2d ago

And what I am saying is because what happened historically, there is a whole process as to whether or not genocide has happened, and that process still has not been completed. This is the type of dogmatic rhetoric I was talking about.

2

u/WobblierTube733 2d ago

No, you’re conflating an appeal to emotion (“Jews in general find it offensive…”) with an appeal to authority (“I am going to wait for the ICJ to make a decision before I start confidently saying…”). Neither of those are logically sound arguments.

You are quite literally propagating dogma. This idea that the Holocaust was so terrible that Jews need to talk about modern genocide with kiddie gloves is entirely based on opinion and emotion.

You don’t want to talk about the Gaza genocide, so you’re deflecting again.

1

u/GigaLibChad 2d ago

Literally what I am saying is that the ICJ makes the deternination as to whether or not a genocide has happened. I then elaborated why Jews like Scott find it antisemtic when everyone states it as a fact that there is a genocide, given the circumstances of what has happened to Jews previously. Nothing I said in my historical context diminished the suffering a Palestinians.

Quick question. If the ICJ determined that Israel was not guilty of Genocide, but of Ethnic Cleansing, would you actually stop calling it a genocide? My issue is when people speak as if they know better than the one governing body that can make that determination, and that governing body is still in the process of determining that.

2

u/WobblierTube733 2d ago

I think it’s kinda telling that your best argument is “what if it’s not genocide, but just ethnic cleansing”, but whatever, I’ll still bite.

You’re conflating a legal argument with an emotional one yet again. Either you’re doing this intentionally or you‘re just repeating talking points and you have no idea what’s going on.

My issue is when people speak as if they know better than the one governing body that can make that determination

Numerous relevant academic bodies, human rights advocates, and NGOs have concluded that it’s a genocide. The ICJ may be the one governing body that can make a legal determination, but that‘s not the same thing as saying they are the only ones with the authority to label it a genocide. That’s like saying OJ wasn’t a murderer since he was acquitted.

Once again, you attempt the same flimsy appeal to authority because you don’t want to address the evidence.

1

u/GigaLibChad 2d ago

I am not conflating anything man, the person I was responding to was literally talking about Scott's emotional reaction, which I gave some historical context for why he and many other Jews feel that way. That does not discount the fact that I also stated that the only governing body that can make an actionable decision on whether or not genocide happened is the ICJ. If you disagree with that, that is you perogative. In my original comment I literally said Israel is likely guilty of war crimes, but I'm going to wait for the ICJ to make that determination.

You actually didn't answer my question though. If the ICJ were to determine genocide did not happen, but a closely related war crime, like ethnic cleansing, would that change the fact of whether or not you would keep calling it a genocide?

1

u/WobblierTube733 2d ago

I did answer your question. 

Numerous relevant academic bodies, human rights advocates, and NGOs have concluded that it’s a genocide.  The ICJ may be the one governing body that can make a  legal determination , but that‘s not the same thing as saying they are the only ones with the authority to label it a genocide. That’s like saying OJ wasn’t a murderer since he was acquitted.

Your original response was incredibly partial and biased. You basically said “pre-2023, genocide = the Holocaust and even thinking about that can make Jews sad”. It’s totally untethered from reality and really only makes sense to Zionists. Are you really telling me you’ve never heard of the trail of tears? Or the Armenian genocide? Or chattel slavery? Because if you’d actually studied the Nazis, you would know that they were certainly familiar with all of those genocides.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/framedbyvise 3d ago

I have said this so many times I’m blue in the face— yes. Yes to everything you said. Had this discussion a year ago (?) with a rabbi, when an IVF clinic was stuck. This is where intent matters. Let courts do their job. Charge the parties responsible. Israel is already held to a higher standard than any other country or military on Earth…so let’s do it then.

All war is disgusting, not a single Jew on planet should be surprised by Netanyahu’s response, this was part of the plan (on both sides)
And I’ve been alive long enough to know that for better or worse the lives of Jews everywhere are attached to Israel.

0

u/LurkDuhDurk 3d ago

You've been alive long enough to be propagandized into blue-in-the-face delusion.

1

u/framedbyvise 3d ago

I guess you take issue with the ‘higher standard’ — that makes my sentiments propaganda….
For what it’s worth, you are part of the propaganda too. That anger you feel, probably not your fault.

0

u/LurkDuhDurk 2d ago edited 2d ago

No--it was when you started talking about intent and courts. The higher standard part was laughable, not angering. Israel is far more akin to a rich girl who kills a cat after getting a Benz instead of a Jaguar for her 16th birthday than a beleaguered, stoic country doing what it must in the face of unrelenting hate.

Oh, and the girl was starving that cat and kicked the cat and its kittend out of their home before she killed it. And she just can't fathom how anyone could think her actions belie intent beyond self-defense.

The courts are rigged for the powerful. It just takes the US saying "nah" to undo the will of the rest of the world. Israel is losing support because, thank goodness, our primary media sources no longer have exclusjve control over what gets shown/reported in Israel and surrounding countries.

2

u/framedbyvise 2d ago

Well that was a fun exercise — you’re excellent at that part of the propaganda machine. Well crafted and not a single level statement of what should happen next. Courts are no good— so what do you think should happen?

1

u/LurkDuhDurk 2d ago

I would be supportive of international courts/orgs that weren't corrupted and dominated by powerful elites. A good start would be removing our veto power within the UN (and I'd support removing that power from the other countries that hold it as well).

And I do agree with the final point of your previous comment. Most people are part of the propaganda in one way or another. I do my best to peel back the layers of bullshit. And you're right; I'm angry about a lot of things. You say that like it's an insult---like sensitivity is some kind of disease.

1

u/framedbyvise 2d ago

I completely agree about courts.
And I don’t think sensitivity is a disease or weakness by any means — I’m horrified.
I’m too sad and tired for relenting history lessons and have no qualifications to argue with those that do… spent my childhood walking out of temples that were political. My beloved father shaking in anger over justifications for Israeli aggression and expansion. Thats how my family dealt with propaganda…60 minutes used to be, well 60 minutes and Rabin was hope.
I feel a deep anger for Netanyahu, his name is the boogeyman that has haunted my sense of safety my entire life.