On a recent episode of the Raging Moderates podcast, Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed and host Scott Galloway discussed the ongoing conflict in Gaza and the use of the term “genocide” in describing Israeli actions. The exchange illuminated divergent views on the implications and appropriateness of such language amid the violence.
Galloway cited historical genocides, including the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, and the Khmer Rouge's atrocities, to underline the severity and scale typically associated with that term. He argued that Israel’s conduct in Gaza differed significantly, pointing to Israeli efforts to mitigate civilian harm—such as distributing polio vaccines, providing humanitarian aid, establishing evacuation corridors, and issuing warnings to civilians in areas targeted due to Hamas’s military presence. Galloway suggested these actions set Israel apart from regimes historically labeled genocidal.
El-Sayed responded by stating that the power of the term “genocide” lies in naming the crime before it reaches catastrophic levels, implying that early use of the word serves a preventive purpose. Critics interpret this view as prioritizing the term's utility over strict legal definitions, contending that such an approach conflates the need to halt atrocities with the burden of proof required to substantiate genocide claims under international law.
Debate over the death toll in Gaza further complicates the discussion. Figures cited by some activists and commentators—often sourced from Hamas’s Health Ministry—are contested due to the ministry’s methodology, which reportedly does not differentiate between combatants and civilians and may include natural deaths. Additionally, critics argue that many who invoke the genocide label have not explicitly called for Hamas’s surrender or the release of hostages taken on October 7, suggesting that rallying cries to end the violence lack clarity on achievable resolution steps.
The discussion also touches on concerns about the historical and current use of antisemitic rhetoric. The invocation of “genocide” as a charge against Israel has drawn parallels to longstanding libels against Jewish communities, which have historically incited violence and pogroms. Examples range from medieval accusations such as ritual murder and well-poisoning to 20th-century killings following blood libel claims and anti-Jewish pogroms in the Middle East. The term “genocide” is viewed by some commentators as a modern iteration of such libels, carrying potent moral condemnation that can, intentionally or not, fuel hostility.
The repercussions of inflammatory language were underscored by recent violent acts targeting Jewish communities in the United States. In May 2025, a shooter killed two people outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, citing a manifesto that referred to “perpetrators and abettors” of genocide. Days later, a firebombing during a hostage march in Boulder resulted in the death of an elderly participant. Both attackers appeared motivated, at least in part, by allegations of genocide against Jews or Israel.
El-Sayed himself has been scrutinized for remarks following a March 2025 attack on a synagogue in West Bloomfield, Michigan, where a gunman assaulted a congregation preschool. El-Sayed condemned the violence but also made statements suggesting a broader cycle of hurt, which some viewed as diminishing the severity of antisemitic violence. He later issued a partial apology but maintained contextual justifications.
On policy, El-Sayed opposes U.S. arms sales to Israel, including Iron Dome missile defense systems, despite ongoing threats from Iran-backed groups and Hamas’s stated commitment to ongoing attacks. This stance has drawn criticism from those who see it as compromising the security of Israel’s Jewish population.
Galloway and his co-host Jessica Tarlov acknowledged concerns among Jewish Americans but framed the debate in terms of political electability and messaging, distinguishing between allegations of war crimes and genocide. Legal experts emphasize that war crimes and genocide are separate categories under international law, each requiring distinct criteria for classification. While Israel has faced accusations of war crimes, such allegations do not automatically meet the stringent standard of intent required to classify actions as genocide.
The conversation reflects broader tensions over discourse surrounding Israel, antisemitism, and definitions of mass atrocities. The characterization of Israel’s military actions remains deeply contested, with significant implications for political rhetoric, public perception, and community safety.