It occurs to me that all this back and forth about killing prisoners at Jaffa--the ones who had given their parole earlier at El-Arish and Gaza--killing people in Cairo, massacring people in Ceylon, and so on and so forth in a completely ridiculous attempt to show who was more brutal or who was more humane is, in the context of the times and circumstances absolutely irrelevant. There was no Geneva Convention then, or even the concept of one, not until the carnage of Magenta and Solferino in 1859. No, this was business as usual, common to the era, and general acting alone or in conjunction with political leaders did what needed to be done.
Lose your 21st century sensibilities and try to understand the prevailing attitudes of the times.. We may wring our hands over them now, but then...? Not so much. If you can't deal with the unpleasant facts of history in the contexts and prevailing mindsets of the times in which these unpleasant facts occurred, then I don't see much value in exculpatory explanations, the "But so and so did so much worse" argument, or the "So and so was Satan incarnate" piling on.
Bonaparte and hos officers had their reasons, acceptable to the generally prevailing wisdom in 1798, for executing folks at Jaffa, and they were executed. So what? Brownrigg ordered the executions of everyone on Ceylon, with little or no public outcry in Britain, And that's another so what?
And at the end of the day, people, s**t happens in history.