Paddy Cosgrave said his "personal comments have become a distraction from the event, and our team, our sponsors, our startups and the people who attend."

Web Summit CEO Paddy Cosgrave steps down in wake of controversy over his Israel comments::Paddy Cosgrave said his “personal comments have become a distraction from the event, and our team, our sponsors, our startups and the people who attend.”

    • stifle867@programming.devEnglish
      34·
      1 year ago

      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.

        • stifle867@programming.devEnglish
          18·
          1 year ago

          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.

            • stifle867@programming.devEnglish
              10·
              1 year ago

              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.

    • vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      11·
      1 year ago

      declared as war crimes

      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.

      could (!) also be a war crime

      This is also not how war crimes work. “They started it” is for the playground.

        • vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
          8·
          1 year ago

          By the International Criminal Court for example

          Guess who is not a signatory of the ICC treaty.

          If Israel were to accede it would be a cause for great celebration.

          leave your fucking twitter catchphrases out of a discussion if you want to be taken seriously…

          I don’t need you to take me seriously. I want you to understand that I’m not taking you seriously.

          Still a very grey area but not necessarily a war crime as everyone is shouting here.

          If your best case is “It might not technically be a war crime”, you are not in a great position.

          • BlueBockser@programming.devEnglish
            2·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
              3·
              1 year ago

              It still is valid and it is a much more trustworthy source

              Just sign the fucking treaty then.

              Enough excuses.

                • vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
                  3·
                  1 year ago

                  and then what?

                  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?

                  Everybody is to afraid to take actions like with that russian cunt in the kreml?

                  Also not a signatory. Were Russia to join the treaty, I would again be dancing in the streets.

                  And will Hamas do the same?

                  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.