CEO of Web Summit tech conference resigns over Israel comments

I recommend you give it a full read as they explain (with examples) why they believe these acts are indiscriminate.

Regardless, the ex-ceo of WebSummit has made comments similar to what the UN is stating. I don’t see why that’s a cancellable offense or antisemitic. I suspect his connections to Qatar are what got him in real trouble.

I think it’s much the same as the US’s drone strike program in the Middle East - after so many times, it would take either incredible bias or actual irrationality to believe that these strikes were not approved with the knowledge that they would kill civilians, and potentially mostly kill civilians.

Maybe if it were just the first few dozen times, but it gets harder and harder to be charitable about their intentions…

You raise a good point about optics. While the optics, such as which Western leaders may be seen to be supporting incompetent or enabling behavior, are certainly important, it's vital to consider that in a conflict as complex as the Israel-Palestine one, it might be hard to definitively pin down who is "right" and who is "wrong". It may even be hard to judge with certainty who is "responsible" and who is "victim".

All these binary labels may sometimes only function to further divide already fracturing conflicts and make resolution and reconciliation harder to reach. So, binary thinking is often to be avoided.

But "binary thinking" may have a silver lining, in that, perhaps the only real choice we have is between deciding if we want to invest our time in either: figuring out who we are going to label as "wrong" and who as "right"; or, focusing our attention getting results that reduce conflict and suffering.

I'm sorry for misunderstanding you, I now understand that you don't see a disconnect there. Ha! "block of wood" that's a good one! Thank you for sharing your real view, your courage in sharing is inspiring, and I respect your integrity! :)

I read your "must equally face consequences" as promoting an admirable lack of bias. Likewise with your helpful comparison of the relative moral priorities of (war) crimes versus loyalties, which I saw as evidence of your support of impartiality and justice.

I appreciate you clarifying your position and owning your bias--even if you don't state what it is!--we all have biases, but if we are primarily led by them, and not by the more objective and impartial principles you also mention, it may be difficult to arrive at a satisfactory solution, or peace.

Your suggestion regarding avoiding binary thinking is a great idea, and in this complex conflict it is important to retain nuance. However, your comment above could itself be interpreted as an example of binary "with us or against us" thinking, which might be seen as escalatory or unhelpful if we wish to avoid bias and conflict.

In other words, it's important to incorporate diverse perspectives and not end up promoting the very thing you may be against.

In examining multiple ways Mr Cosgrove's comment could be interpreted, my perspective here is striving for a balanced viewpoint. Striving for a balanced viewpoint does not necessarily imply insensitivity or bias; rather, it's an effort to understand the complexities of this long-standing conflict.

Regarding the mention of war crimes, it's important to note that allegations of this nature are very serious and should be based on international law, ideally confirmed through independent investigations.

Crucially, Cosgrove's explicit condemnation of Hamas was made during his apology, 3 days after his controversial statement.

You raise an important point about not ignoring the slaughter of Palestinian innocents and civilians, and how it's vital to carefully consider what you are saying, but your suggestion that my comments are transgressing these seems to ignore that advice. Your statement looks like it misses that my comments have examined Cosgrove's statement from different perspectives on multiple sides.

Your comments show a seeming swiftness to accuse, which might be read as a form of conflict escalation, or even bias, while your accusations themselves could be seen as an example of simplified "binary" thinking, in contrast with your advice to carefully consider what you are saying. This could lead to your comment being viewed as an unhelpful, or contradictory, contribution to a dialogue aimed at fostering impartiality and peace. You support those, but they are not reflected in the above comment.

No worries, man. I forgive you!

Having knee-jerk reactions is totally understandable, and especially common when a topic is this intense and impactful.

It's crucial to remember that while normal, those reflexive responses don't define who we are, and also to strive to get beyond those initial highly charged responses to something more strategic and constructive.

Mr Cosgrove's comments were made on October 13, 6 days after the Hamas attack. Israel announced its blockade on October 9. While technically true that they came around the same time, it might be a challenge to argue he was referring to that specifically.

Without additional context that clarifies his statements, it's likely his tweet could be interpreted as supporting Hamas by suggesting that any response was an unjustified war crime.

This raises the important point that allegations of war crimes are significant and it's critical to follow due process, and evidence in their investigation. Attempting to side step such legal principles could lead to the terms being abused as a pretext to try to justify further killings.

Crucially, using the terms in a casual context or without specific clarifications, could be read as an attempt to delegitimize any actions taken by those targeted with such accusations. It could even be seen as part of a larger information warfare or asymmetric campaign waged by an opponent to depict its own acts as justified, through the portrayal of its victims as war criminals deserving of punishment.

Yet such abuse of the terms to justify killing would only pervert the justice that's intended to be served by the notions of war crimes, and likely contribute to escalating cycles of violence that would be wise to avoid.

You raise a compelling point about the use of such narrative techniques to silence legitimate critique of the Israeli government. However, your comment might be interpreted as an attempt to do the same by utilizing the term war crimes to portray the Israeli government as war criminals deserving of retribution, which could be seen as an attempt to justify Hamas' actions.

Therefore, it's crucial to emphasize evidence, legal process and impartial investigation before using terms that could serve as a justification for killings, or contribute to a wider campaign to escalate conflict.

It's important to remember that playing the blame game is unlikely to lead to peace. Instead, it might be more helpful permit notions of criminality and responsibility to be adjudicated by the courts, while instead focusing on the construction of peaceful and profitable solutions now to limit human suffering.