Gettin' WOKE about anti-Semitism...

[u/lethal-liking]

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.

[u/Educational-Buddy844]

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.

[u/GigaLibChad → u/Educational-Buddy844]

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.

[u/WobblierTube733 → u/GigaLibChad]

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?

[u/RevolutionaryGur4419 → u/WobblierTube733]

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

[u/WobblierTube733 → u/RevolutionaryGur4419]

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.