Gautam Mukunda wrote:
>
> Me:
> But I don't think anyone in the world whose opinion matters does think that
> Israel is guilty. The _Palestinians themselves_ say that no massacre took
> place. Photographs and eyewitness testimony have been produced of the
> Palestinians faking the deaths of people at Jenin. They themselves say that
> 56 people were killed, almost half of them Israeli soldiers. A commission
> as apparently biased as the on the UN assembled could only harm Israel.
> Now, there was one person on the commission I trusted - Bill Nash, the
> military advisor, who happens to be an old friend of mine. I would have
> been very curious to hear what he had to say if there had been any serious
> question about what happened. The Israelis say there was no massacre. The
> _Palestinians_ say there was no massacre. The only person who seems to
> think that one might have happened is...you.
I read over Jeroen's posts in the thread, and the only mention he made
of a massacre was hypothetical. Several days ago, my newspaper carried
a story that indicated with more likelihood that a massacre might have
taken place.
Now, no one says there was a massacre, not even Jeroen. He was speaking
hypothetically. I might be doing the same if I hadn't seen any news
about it since the first half of this week, when the information was
hazier.
But as I was skimming my paper sometime in the past few days, when the
situation was a little better understood than the day the article
indicating possible massecre was run, that there was no massacre, but
that there may very well have been war crimes. The two are not
necessarily synonymous.
I'm hazy on the details of what's actually going on, but I think you're
attributing statements to Jeroen that he did not make in the manner you
attribute to him.
Now, can you explain to me, preferably in words of less than 4 syllables
since I may be foggy when I get to reading e-mail later, why I read that
while there was no massacre, there were war crimes, and if so, what sort
of things could they have done that would have been considered war
crimes without it being a massacre? Or point out a good article (NOT an
opinion piece, interesting as one might be) that would explain that to
me? Thanks in advance.
Or will someone tell me to read the front section of *today's* paper?
:)
Julia
