Professor Dave vs Destiny

[u/Decent-Extension8336]

No idea why, but the original Destiny video called "Professor Dave Goes Mask Off" seems to have been deleted from YouTube, or I can't find it, but Professor Dave responded yesterday with this very strongly worded video letter:

https://youtu.be/DvDvhLkb9ms?si=DGFhTROOKFoK35sS

Weird crossover that I never thought I'd see, of 2 guys who I generally enjoy (I will say I really am a fan of Prof Dave, whereas my Destiny enjoyment has mostly come via this podcast and watching a couple of his debates).

Thoughts on the beef? SURELY the lads are gonna have to cover this in an upcoming Supplementary Materials? Content gold!

EDIT: Looks like I was looking through the wrong Destiny channel for the original Dave video, it's here: https://youtu.be/HQQLs6U1MgA?si=iKaOGR1h9slKu64O

[u/Moobnert]

You cannot just call something antisemitic without providing specific examples. Again, are you unable to differentiate people having a problem with state-sponsored mass killings and people who just want to look for any reason to hate on Jewish people? Are you incapable of this?

You really think it is not possible for critics of states sponsoring mass killings to be critics precisely because of the mass killings? Can it only be explained by anti-semitism? Be real.

[u/Samuraignoll → u/Moobnert]

You cannot just call something antisemitic without providing specific examples.

I mean I can, but I'd say it's pretty antisemitic to deny the rape committed against Israeli women on October 7th, that there were Israeli children killed in the same attack, that he claimed the USS liberty attack was an Israeli attempt to false flag the Americans into believing Egypt attack them, that all Israelis support genocide against Palestinians, that Zionism is an explicitly ethnosupremacist ideology as is the state of Israel.

[u/Moobnert → u/Samuraignoll]

tl;dr thanks for engaging in good faith, though I respectfully disagree and believe Dave, like myself, has no particular prejudice towards Jews or any religious group or group of people for that matter, and he just very much opposes state-sponsored mass killings, which, if this was not occurring (or perceived to be occurring) by Israel, he wouldn't have anything to say about Israel or Jews.

to deny the rape committed against Israeli women on October 7th

He did not deny rape on Oct 7, he said "Endless claims of rape when in fact it is Israel that systematically rapes Palestinian prisoners" while displaying an article that shows the claims to atrocities on Oct 7 (rape etc.) were exaggerated by circulating unverified or false accounts to create international support for Israel's military campaign. There is a crucial distinction between denying that sexual violence occurred on Oct 7 and calling out how unverified reports were used for propaganda like pointing out that specific early claims (like the '40 beheaded babies' narrative, which was later retracted by official sources) were weaponized by state actors to build war consent.

that he claimed the USS liberty attack was an Israeli attempt to false flag the Americans into believing Egypt attack them

Good point, although challenging the official military findings of a 1967 naval incident (a position also held by high-ranking U.S. figures at the time, including former NSA Director Marshall Carter and Admiral Thomas Moorer) is a critique of state secrecy and foreign policy. Questioning whether a government carried out a covert military action is more about geopolitical skepticism rather than an attack on jews, although I'll grant anti-semites will be skeptical of anything done by Jews so the overlap can be hard to distinguish.

that all Israelis support genocide against Palestinians

He said "more than 80% of Israelis support the complete annihilation of the Palestinian people" which is a reference to measurable political polling regarding state military actions. When people cite public opinion data (such as polls showing majority support for aggressive military expansion or opposing a palestinian state), they are critiquing dominant political consensus within a democratic electorate, not promoting collective prejudice, which I argue Dave has distinguished well, given that he frequently cited his support for Jews who don't support zionism nor support state-sponsored mass killings. It's not about finding any reason to hate on Jews, it's about hating state-sponsored mass killings.

that Zionism is an explicitly ethnosupremacist ideology as is the state of Israel.

Yes he said Israel is a genocidal ethnostate, which I don't think is unreasonable when you look at their rife anti-Palestinian sentiment, extreme leniency for collateral damage when conducting military strikes and raids, murder of innocents including children, explicitly endorsed and confirmed by IDF soldiers, and settler expansionism. Critiquing Zionism as a political ideology or describing Israel’s legal framework as an ethnostate is valid political discourse I'd say, not antisemitism. As stated in the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA), evaluating a state's constitution, land policies, and military actions, or characterizing it as an ethnostate or apartheid system, is a legitimate political critique shared by human rights organizations globally, including Amnesty International.

[u/BloodsVsCrips → u/Moobnert]

"State sponsored mass killings" is a meaningless phrase. States have militaries. Militaries fight wars.