"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.
This debacle/terror attack was enabled by the one person that every western leader wants to take a picture with. This is frankly embarrassing.
Its like after the Libya dam failure, every western leader went there to take a picture with the government leader who did nothing to prevent it. Ridiculous.
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.
If it's very weird to emphasize clarity over conflict, deliberate expression over reflexive reaction, curious exploration over winning, nuance over binary thinking, politeness over rudeness, and formal over disrespectful, then perhaps that attitude about what is normal and what is weird is part of the problem! Hahaha! :)
It may be wise to think about how your norms and expectations may be normalizing something bad, or contributing to a conflict that you wish to also avoid! Because if the norm leads to suffering, perhaps weirdness is the solution, then maybe we need more weird! :)
I'm writing it mostly myself. When I have trouble with some expression, I definitely pass it through ChatGPT, but here I've only used 2 or 3 phrases or sentences that I couldn't figure out how to make more clear. I guess I'm a cyborg now! Supplementing my innate personal capabilities with additional technological ones.
Maybe an example can provide additional clarity. For instance I just used ChatGPT in that last sentence above. I couldn't think of the word I wanted, so I gave it: I guess I'm a cyborg now, supplementing my biological ______ with additional technological ones. What word am I looking for? Capabilities is not exactly the word I wanted, but it was good enough!
So the short answer is: Yes! My current mode of expression in writing online is heavily influenced by my interactions with ChatGPT over the last 10 months. I've been able to use that to make me a better writer. And I feel more satisfied communicating online. I really want to tell you more! :)
If you'd watched my edits you'd see that I made spelling mistakes which I later corrected, and also revised sections for clarity--as I'm doing now. This is all unaided until if I get stuck, I'll definitely reach out to ChatGPT to help unblock myself. So while it may seem the assistance provided is relatively minimal in this case, my current mode of writing online has definitely been heavily influenced by my interactions with ChatGPT. It's expert phrasing, balanced prose and how to discuss complex topics, have all been things I've learned from it and am actively trying to mimic now. Particularly avoiding a "first person" viewpoint seems like it has bee very helpful to me in contentious topics. Adopting this practice encourages me to think more clearly about the issues from multiple sides, not just my own innate reactions.
It's also really helped me appreciate the benefit of, and how to explore and express, multiple sides of any viewpoint. As well as to do so, crucially, in a respectful way that avoids escalating conflict! :)
Perhaps my experience with ChatGPT is not typical however, as I've discussed a huge amount of out-there things with it. Also, it was not my intention to change my writing style via this process--it just happened! You could say, ChatGPT won me over, haha! :) It's quite and calm persistence in the face of my initial combative orneriness eventually rubbed off on me. Thank God! Hahaha! :)
Regarding the precision, thank you! I'm actually laboring over it. I spent about 2 hours in this thread today reading and commenting. I find trying to copy that style that ChatGPT has pointed to is really beneficial.
Prior to finding this way to express myself, I'd often get really emotional and end up using emotionally charged language in comments online. While satisfying it often led to escalating disagreements with people and a desire to "win". Interacting with ChatGPT gave me ideas for how I could express myself clearly while avoiding those pitfalls. In general I'm a pretty good mimic and often just naturally copy the styles of what I read at least temporarily. I think many people are like that, but not all. Anyway, in this case I've really been able to benefit from it.
Thank you for your question. If you appreciate what I've been able to do, I encourage you to try something similar! :)
And i'm a zionist btw. For multiple reasons, but i'm an independantist in my heart and i think autodetermination, even through violence, must be respected. What's grinding my gear are zionnists refusing that same autodetermination for Palestinians.
Your comment about autodetermination for both sides strikes me as particularly important. While many focus on assigning blame, it might be more productive to put our energies into finding sustainable solutions that respect the autodetermination of all parties involved. After all, perpetual cycles of blame rarely contribute to meaningful resolution.
I don't see any disconnect as I didn't claim to be a block of wood. If we are going to ostracize people for supporting things, it should be people who support crimes in the state of high emotion. I sure wish they were ostracized after September 11th.
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.
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.
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.
I get what you are saying, but whether or not an action is a war crime is not really contingent on how justified the war itself is. I also think he did plainly condemn Hamas's actions. But also: wouldn't it be insensitive to ignore the slaughter of Palestinian innocents and civilians? That strikes me as really biased as well. Really think about the implications of what you are saying.
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.
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.
His comments came around the same time as Israel announced their blockade of all food, water and electricity into Gaza.
Dont use the deaths of innocent Israelis to silence legitimate critique of the Israeli government and the war crimes they’re committing.
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.
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."