Reply #117: On that we will have to simply disagree. [View All]

[subsuelo]

First of all, one has to ask the question: why the stonewalling by the IDF, particularly if there is nothing to hide. Perhaps they saw the writing on the wall and decided their best option would be to avoid any and all cooperation with HRW, thereby providing something amounting to an escape hatch, however small it may be.

That being said, the fact is that the documentation of evidence and the reasonable conclusions remain, with or without individual testimonies from the IDF. Furthermore, given the available evidence, we should be demanding some kind of tribunal anyway, where we could then be assured we have all the specific testimonies and accounts possible.

--
Your argument is like saying: Knife killed Person A. Knife that killed Person A is discovered with fingerprints of Person B all over it. Further investigation finds Person B's shoe prints tracking mud throughout the crime scene. Several independent witnesses also say they saw Person B committing the crime. First of all, who in their right mind would not demand that Person B be held for questioning? Second, if Person B stonewalls and avoids having to answer anything to do with the crime, does that strengthen or weaken the case against Person B? I submit that it strengthens the case.

Now, ladies and gentleman of the jury, decision time. You've seen the knife and you've seen the fingerprints. You've seen the muddy footprints and you've heard the witnesses testimonies. The defendant refuses to speak. What's your verdict?

Not exactly a stretch to say: Person B did it. Is it?
--

Regarding the HRW report, I am comfortable with the findings. Particularly given that other human rights reports also corroborate the same conclusions.