96
Web Summit CEO Paddy Cosgrave steps down in wake of controversy over his Israel comments
(www.businessinsider.com)
this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2023
96 points (93.6% liked)
Technology
59427 readers
3991 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
For context what he said was:
Apparently condemning war crimes is enough to lose your job these days.
Even though he's right, this is why you should have an anonymous account. Just focus on your business with your real account and stay out of trouble.
yeah but right now a lot of people yelling war crimes and want Israel condemned for them before they even declared as warcrimes...
just look at the hospital incident and how quick everybody was with hate, insults and condemnation after the Hamas reported about it.
not every collateral damage is a war crime, although it's always a tragedy. But please also don't forget that storing military equipment near hospitals or using civilian facilities as place of operation for military activities could (!) also be a war crime itself.
Collective punishment is a war crime.
Amnesty International says Israel is committing collective punishment in Gaza.
Israel is committing collective punishment in West Bank, too.
Everything you said is valid... but to me, it doesn't really apply to this specific context. As far as I could see (admittedly I did only skim the article) but the general statement he made did not mention any specifics. I think it's unfair to take a broad statement such as condemning war crimes, and to rebut it by saying well a lot of other people are calling this one specific instance a war crime when it hasn't yet been proven.
I get what you are saying and let's be honest to loose your job because of your tweets and your opinion is simply idiotic, since he did not post anything even nearly in an antisemitism area...
But I get that the timing of his first tweet was not the best and his second tweet was much better in terms of "a possible general acceptance". We sadly live now in a quite strange world where everything you post can be used against you based on your reach in social media and he should knew that.
Also I think this whole "Hamas did bad, but Israel is committing war crimes" narrative always leaves a bad taste in many mouths and has some kind of justification for the Hamas actions in it...don't know.
It's not a competition to see who can commit the most war crimes. This whole idea of comparing one faction against another to see who is worse is just stupid. It should not even come into play when someone simply condemns war crimes! The fact that people read so much into a simple statement says more about them than the person who posted it. If someone's reaction to someone saying "war crimes are war crimes even when commited by your allies" is to think "well that person is justifying Hamas's actions" then the problem lies there, just as much as it is to think "that person is saying Israel doesn't have a right to defend themselves".
All it is is making the world more divisive when it should be unifying to condemn the tragic loss of innocent human life. People should not impose their factional viewpoints on something as simple as that.
But they do, and very open in this very long and very unnecessary conflict. And again not every news of an incident in the middle east right now is a war crime. This is also an information war and to use the term war crime for every operation or military strike done by Israel is also part of an agenda of the hamas, because it sure as shit frames Israel in a very intentional way, fuelig the hate against them, which then aids the hamas again.
I also condemn every human loss in this war about who has the better god and has more right to live in this area of the middle east, but in the end I also support Israel's right to exist and to defend itself and I don't know how Israel should fight an enemy that is deeply rooted in palestina and also uses its citizens as a welcoming sacrifice...
These are all points to be making to a totally different conversation. The original comment that caused this person to step down was a condemnation of committing war crimes, not an analysis of which specific acts qualify as war crimes nor whether they support a specific party. These type of comments further the exact problem I pointed out. It's not an excuse to say "but they do". Be better, don't make the same mistakes just because everyone else is.
By whom exactly?
Tell me you know nothing about the law of international armed conflict without telling me you know nothing about the law of international armed conflict.
This is also not how war crimes work. “They started it” is for the playground.
Guess who is not a signatory of the ICC treaty.
If Israel were to accede it would be a cause for great celebration.
I don’t need you to take me seriously. I want you to understand that I’m not taking you seriously.
If your best case is “It might not technically be a war crime”, you are not in a great position.
You: Accuse Israel of war crimes
They: Prove that Israel technically didn't commit any war crime
You: tHaT's NoT a GoOd ArGuMeNt
I'm not saying I agree with everything Israel is doing, but calling their actions war crimes when they're not is just wrong. I hate to break it to you, but insisting on a lie doesn't make it any more true.
Did not. Show proof.
Just sign the fucking treaty then.
Enough excuses.
Then you subject yourself to the jurisdiction of an independent international court that is empowered to investigate war crimes. Which is exactly what this thread is about.
Are you paying attention?
Also not a signatory. Were Russia to join the treaty, I would again be dancing in the streets.
That’s the beauty of the treaty. War crimes committed against a signatory or on a signatories territory are covered. It protects Israel regardless of who perpetrates the war crimes.
Sign it. There’s no reason not to.
Unless of course the entire point is to do war crimes, deny them, and get away with them because of the lack of international accountability mechanism.
No, that’s what the post is about. The thread, that you started, is about war crimes and their adjudication.