Instead of answering the question -- How can we use the same word to describe what happened in Gaza that we use to describe Auschwitz or Cambodia or Rwanda? -- he accuses Israel of using "dehumanizing language" and bombing Gazan hospitals.
I'm not sure what counts as "dehumanizing language." Is "Zionist entity" dehumanizing language? What about "Zio-Nazi"? "Settler-colonialist"?
Presumably, he knows why Israel attacks hospitals. It's because they're not really hospitals but military bases that contain civilians -- the better to invite civilian casualties. If he were honest, he would concede the calculus of the Israeli-Hamas conflict: The Jews want to limit the number of Palestinian deaths, because every death isolates them a little more on the world stage; and Hamas wants to maximize the number of Palestinian deaths. Without Palestinian blood, there is no cause. How else are they to drum up international support?
But maybe, just maybe, he knows none of this. El-Sayed appears to inhabit a fantasy land. Who, exactly, is proposing we ship Arabs "over there"? Where is "there"?
None of this is especially important when it comes to representing Michigan in D.C., but it's noteworthy, because his whole political identity is rooted in The Struggle. Without that, there is no identity. Which makes one wonder: Is the would-be senator's sense of self founded on delusion and mythology?
Scott Galloway asks Abdul El-Sayed: Do you understand why Jews such as myself find your use of the term genocide as disqualifying?
El-Sayed: In some respects, people don't want to use the word because of the moral implication of what ought to be done following it.