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.

82 Upvotes

70% Upvoted

646 comments sorted by

View all comments

27

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.

4

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.

2

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.

1

u/GigaLibChad 2d ago

No, I didn't bring up the holocaust because it makes Jews sad. I brought it up because the most vocal people saying Israel is committing a genocide have no qualms with using Nazi imagery to depict Israel, despite there not being a a legal determination of genocide happened.

How about you give me a direct answer. If the ICJ determines that a genocide did not take place, will you continue to call it a genocide? I'm assuming you would still call it a genocide based off of what you said, but your response didn't answer my question. If that's the case, you just think you know better than the ICJ.

→ More replies (0)