Curious about the forbidden words he used, it seems to have been the following:
> I’m shocked at the rhetoric and actions of so many Western leaders & governments, with the exception in particular of Ireland’s government, who for once are doing the right thing. War crimes are war crimes even when committed by allies, and should be called out for what they are.
Removing the fact that this is about the Israel-Palestine situation, makes this look like relatively sane and balanced viewed of war crimes that I think most people could agree with.
But since this is about Israel and Palestine, that somehow makes his statements anti-Israeli I suppose?
Should be rather un-controversial, given that many UN organizations were/are publishing statements warning about possible war crimes (and other international crimes) commited by Israel, and Israel is certainly capable of commiting them.
Some Israeli-Palestinian organizations are also calling out against war crimes.
When Israel is killing people by hundreds every day, and thretening millions to level their cities, while bombarding them and cutting them of from humanitarian aid, and basic living necessities, it's a very bad look for some moralizing companies to stand up against someone who just points out that this may be basically pretty bad, inhumane, even a war crime, no matter which side you like.
"War crimes" are not bad/tragic things that are occurring. War crimes require specific intent to say kill civilians. the laws of war acknowledge that civilians will die during war. The death of a civilian is not in and of itself a war crime.
Calling things war crimes in a factual manner when one doesn't have any ability to know what is occurring, is problematic. why? because one is making the argument that Israel is explicitly intending to target and kill civilians. If one is wrong about that, it's the equivalent of a blood libel.
As a simple example: if on average 1 in every 10,000 smart bombs would have a defect (i.e. a very small percentage) that turns it into a dumb bomb. One is lucky when that defective bomb doesn't kill any non targets. However, even if it it caused as massive tragic loss of life (as world media tried to pin on Israel for the self inflicted Hospital bombing), that accident is not a war crime. There is no intent, and using smart bombs (i.e. more expensive and more accurate) is in general proof that they were not acting recklessly.
Of course, if one believes Israel's entire existence is a "crime", then none of this matters to those people, because Israel's entire existence is a "crime" and even if they would only kill "combatants" without 0 civilian deaths, they would still view those deaths as "war crimes" (in the sense that if you're committing a crime, you can't claim self defense if your kill someone who is trying to stop you with physical force). I would argue that those who view Israel's existence as a "crime" are in general antisemites.
You cant run away from the crime of killing civilians by just chalking it up to “intention” or “the cost of war”. That’s called collective punishment and yes, that is a war crime.
Trial by social media. Now CEOs have to walk on eggshells because their sponsors could pull out because of some cherry-picked tweet. Paddy is a smart guy who also revealed bias in the Irish Media not so long ago. He didn't need to resign IMHO.
This isn’t at all new. In training as a manager (> 7 years ago) and director even at a smaller company they made it clear my behavior in public may be associated with the company negatively and to be conscious of it. Maybe this guy didn’t get such training or wasn’t paying attention.
That said, I agree, he didn’t need to resign but he may have done so to avoid further negative attention to avoid a Streisand effect.
He's more 'widely known' than respected in the Irish tech scene and I really wouldn't see him as a spokesperson. I don't disagree with what he said per se but he has been just spouting every opinion that pops in to his head for the past two decades and this habit has finally caught up with him.
It's best practice to keep your cards close to your chest when promoting a brand or business -- so this isn't some new 'trial' by social media. The advantage lies with those who choose to be 'apolitical' rather than those who pick a side for their brand to align with.
A trial by social media where the evidence is a post he himself made and the result is companies choosing not to do business with him?
Seems perfectly ok. His comments here seem relatively tame and seems like an overreaction, but other orgs are free to associate with whom they choose are they not?
Anyone that tells the truth, that Israel is an apartheid regime that is openly committing war crimes, and has a free pass for both, should expect to be cancelled since Israel's supporters own all of the media and all of the means of doing business.
This shouldn't be news to anyone that has consumed the news (ever).
Very real possibility this is the end of Web Summit, which is crazy when you consider the size and significance of the event vs the incident which triggered the outcry. Next event after Lisbon? Doha 2024. Qatar of course the main financial backers of Hamas (not Iran, contrary to MSM conflation)
The 30 millions per month 'from' Qatar is likely given by Netanyahu's government [0], or at least exchanged against contracts and political clout from Netanyahu (according to a French middle-east 'expert').
Iran is linked to Hamas post irak war, when sunni and chia fundamentalists decided they were circumstancial allies, and have ideological links.
Ideologically the Fatah is way closer to the west. The recent expropriations in east Jerusalem (including the catholic hospital/orphanage my father was born in) were a signal Netanyahu's government gave that it would rather deal with Hamas than Fatah. It was a failure in leadership and humanity that coalesced into this very situation (not blaming the numerous victims here, who asked nothing: they're like people downstream a dam failure: their government failed them.)
> Ideologically the Fatah is way closer to the west.
That's why Israel early on actively nurtured the Islamist network that became Hamas in Gaza (I mean, besides “division among Palestinians is good”, which itself is a major factor); they wanted a face for their opposition that was less sympathetic to the West.
Netanyahu's governments active undermining of the Fatah-led PLO, enabling of Hamas, and sabotaging of plans to hold new Palestinian elections all feeds into that desire to avoid having an opposition that looks democratic and is otherwise sympathetic to the West, to maintain Western support, or at least acquiescence, for the necessity of Israel not moving toward peace.
Given Irish history, and this person's Irish origin, I can understand how, in an unguarded and possibly reflexive moment, he could see this as merely support for a smaller, inferior, insurgent force against a larger, militarily superior occupying force, as this can be argued to loosely parallel Irish 20C history involving Britain.
At the same time, I'm surprised because this person organized a cosmopolitan gathering, and it seems likely that he would have adopted a more cosmopolitan and sensitive attitude.
I suppose the old adage is true, "The tree may leave the forest, but its roots are still in the soil."
I don't really agree with your summary of his position given the quote in the article:
"War crimes are war crimes even when committed by allies, and should be called out for what they are,"
That is a reminder that crimes against humanity are more serious than political sides. Israelis and Palestinians who have massacred civilians must equally face consequences. People who are angry at that quote are the ones to ostracize.
It's certainly possible to read it as you portray it: a reminder of moral priorities and the importance of integrity in upholding those in an unbiased way. It's commendable that you take that constructive and positive view.
However, the comment you provide lacks sufficient context to make that reading explicit, meaning it is at least open to interpretation. This vagueness could be seen as moral equivocation, insensitivity, or an indirect statement of a more extreme position.
Crucially, the quote you provide is preceded by additional comments regarding the rhetoric of Western leaders except Ireland, which makes it clear that the subject of the comment is Israel, given the widespread support Israel has received from many Western leaders after Hamas' attack.
Regarding ostracizing of people who were angry at the above tweet, your sentiment could itself be read as insensitive to the loss of life and indirectly supporting Hamas.
In general, it's hard to argue that people who condemn Mr Cosgrove's statement should be ostracized, while simultaneously claiming a lack of bias.
Finally, it's important to note that condemnation of the tweet was widespread with many companies boycotting the event.
Did you read his comments? I would think it’s more cosmopolitan to support the civilians of both Israel and Palestine than just Israel. It’s not like he showed support for Hamas.
It's always charitable to assume that someone with whom you may disagree, did read the same thing as you, otherwise it might come across as suggesting your conclusion is the only one acceptable, which suggests a lack of respect for other people's views.
While it's true that he didn't explicitly say he supported Hamas, his suggestion that Israel's response constitutes a war crime, less than 1 week after Hamas' brutal slaughter of at least 1400 innocents, may be interpreted as insensitive and biased.
a. Either you're actually wrong and need to reflect and change your future behavior. (Still CEO).
b. Either you're correct and need to stand up for what you said. (Still CEO).
You only could resign if you did something so egregious that reflection is not going to help the situation right now (either to the business or to others); or you did not believe or have the courage to stand up for what you said (virtue signal or mob rule).
And fact 2, if he owns 80% of Web Summit, it won't change the fact of the next CEO that is put in place?
He could clarify his statements so the context of his Twitter feed could not be framed to say he supports terrorists. Even if you think he didn't say something to get framed that way, others do, so he could Tweet extra Tweets and clarify what he means. Then move forward next year at the next Web Summit with everyone there, after they understand the situation.
It's pretty akin to why anything critical of Elon Musk is fairly quickly flagged and hidden. Despite all the protestations otherwise by the denizens, hacker news is not a free-speech haven, but a PR forum for a highly influential venture capital firm.
I wonder how the free speech absolutists will take this? On the one hand, this is clearly "online cancel culture" ruining someone's life, but on the other hand, support for Israel is very important for the evangelical right.
(There's also the third hand which is the odd things free speech people seem to think about the Jewish people . . .)
Readit News
> I’m shocked at the rhetoric and actions of so many Western leaders & governments, with the exception in particular of Ireland’s government, who for once are doing the right thing. War crimes are war crimes even when committed by allies, and should be called out for what they are.
https://twitter.com/paddycosgrave/status/1712790539844612553
> To repeat: War crimes are war crimes even when committed by allies & should be called out for what they are.
> I will not relent.
https://twitter.com/paddycosgrave/status/1713964519884513446
Removing the fact that this is about the Israel-Palestine situation, makes this look like relatively sane and balanced viewed of war crimes that I think most people could agree with.
But since this is about Israel and Palestine, that somehow makes his statements anti-Israeli I suppose?
Some Israeli-Palestinian organizations are also calling out against war crimes.
https://www.btselem.org/gaza_strip/20231019_one_crime_does_n...
When Israel is killing people by hundreds every day, and thretening millions to level their cities, while bombarding them and cutting them of from humanitarian aid, and basic living necessities, it's a very bad look for some moralizing companies to stand up against someone who just points out that this may be basically pretty bad, inhumane, even a war crime, no matter which side you like.
Calling things war crimes in a factual manner when one doesn't have any ability to know what is occurring, is problematic. why? because one is making the argument that Israel is explicitly intending to target and kill civilians. If one is wrong about that, it's the equivalent of a blood libel.
As a simple example: if on average 1 in every 10,000 smart bombs would have a defect (i.e. a very small percentage) that turns it into a dumb bomb. One is lucky when that defective bomb doesn't kill any non targets. However, even if it it caused as massive tragic loss of life (as world media tried to pin on Israel for the self inflicted Hospital bombing), that accident is not a war crime. There is no intent, and using smart bombs (i.e. more expensive and more accurate) is in general proof that they were not acting recklessly.
Of course, if one believes Israel's entire existence is a "crime", then none of this matters to those people, because Israel's entire existence is a "crime" and even if they would only kill "combatants" without 0 civilian deaths, they would still view those deaths as "war crimes" (in the sense that if you're committing a crime, you can't claim self defense if your kill someone who is trying to stop you with physical force). I would argue that those who view Israel's existence as a "crime" are in general antisemites.
If you have an issue with people making these claims without context, then here’s the UN itself calling out war crimes for both sides: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/10/israeloccupi...
Dead Comment
That said, I agree, he didn’t need to resign but he may have done so to avoid further negative attention to avoid a Streisand effect.
People have been canceled due to comments on social media for more than a decade at this point. This is nothing new.
This is the tree we got from the seeds that we let grow.
It's best practice to keep your cards close to your chest when promoting a brand or business -- so this isn't some new 'trial' by social media. The advantage lies with those who choose to be 'apolitical' rather than those who pick a side for their brand to align with.
Deleted Comment
Seems perfectly ok. His comments here seem relatively tame and seems like an overreaction, but other orgs are free to associate with whom they choose are they not?
Note: You have the option to just say one of the following and not answer the question.
- Isreal has the right to defend itself.
- Hamas started this and isreal is defending itself
- They elected hamas and isreal has the the right to defend itself
- The jews people suffer is enormous and can justify anything.
This shouldn't be news to anyone that has consumed the news (ever).
Iran is linked to Hamas post irak war, when sunni and chia fundamentalists decided they were circumstancial allies, and have ideological links.
Ideologically the Fatah is way closer to the west. The recent expropriations in east Jerusalem (including the catholic hospital/orphanage my father was born in) were a signal Netanyahu's government gave that it would rather deal with Hamas than Fatah. It was a failure in leadership and humanity that coalesced into this very situation (not blaming the numerous victims here, who asked nothing: they're like people downstream a dam failure: their government failed them.)
[0] https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/2020-02-24/ty-artic...
That's why Israel early on actively nurtured the Islamist network that became Hamas in Gaza (I mean, besides “division among Palestinians is good”, which itself is a major factor); they wanted a face for their opposition that was less sympathetic to the West.
Netanyahu's governments active undermining of the Fatah-led PLO, enabling of Hamas, and sabotaging of plans to hold new Palestinian elections all feeds into that desire to avoid having an opposition that looks democratic and is otherwise sympathetic to the West, to maintain Western support, or at least acquiescence, for the necessity of Israel not moving toward peace.
At the same time, I'm surprised because this person organized a cosmopolitan gathering, and it seems likely that he would have adopted a more cosmopolitan and sensitive attitude.
I suppose the old adage is true, "The tree may leave the forest, but its roots are still in the soil."
"War crimes are war crimes even when committed by allies, and should be called out for what they are,"
That is a reminder that crimes against humanity are more serious than political sides. Israelis and Palestinians who have massacred civilians must equally face consequences. People who are angry at that quote are the ones to ostracize.
However, the comment you provide lacks sufficient context to make that reading explicit, meaning it is at least open to interpretation. This vagueness could be seen as moral equivocation, insensitivity, or an indirect statement of a more extreme position.
Crucially, the quote you provide is preceded by additional comments regarding the rhetoric of Western leaders except Ireland, which makes it clear that the subject of the comment is Israel, given the widespread support Israel has received from many Western leaders after Hamas' attack.
It's wise to consider the quote in context of Mr Cosgrove's original and complete statement here: https://twitter.com/paddycosgrave/status/1712790539844612553
Regarding ostracizing of people who were angry at the above tweet, your sentiment could itself be read as insensitive to the loss of life and indirectly supporting Hamas.
In general, it's hard to argue that people who condemn Mr Cosgrove's statement should be ostracized, while simultaneously claiming a lack of bias.
Finally, it's important to note that condemnation of the tweet was widespread with many companies boycotting the event.
While it's true that he didn't explicitly say he supported Hamas, his suggestion that Israel's response constitutes a war crime, less than 1 week after Hamas' brutal slaughter of at least 1400 innocents, may be interpreted as insensitive and biased.
a. Either you're actually wrong and need to reflect and change your future behavior. (Still CEO).
b. Either you're correct and need to stand up for what you said. (Still CEO).
You only could resign if you did something so egregious that reflection is not going to help the situation right now (either to the business or to others); or you did not believe or have the courage to stand up for what you said (virtue signal or mob rule).
And fact 2, if he owns 80% of Web Summit, it won't change the fact of the next CEO that is put in place?
He could clarify his statements so the context of his Twitter feed could not be framed to say he supports terrorists. Even if you think he didn't say something to get framed that way, others do, so he could Tweet extra Tweets and clarify what he means. Then move forward next year at the next Web Summit with everyone there, after they understand the situation.
(There's also the third hand which is the odd things free speech people seem to think about the Jewish people . . .)