ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

But here is testimony from the Israeli side.

I mean it is testimony from one ON the Israeli side Walter. Geez.

Did you find that in some Pal rag? It is BS.

But so far as human shields go, the closest thing to re Israeli policy was the practice of sending a Palestinian into buildings where terrorists/combatants were suspected of hiding rather than have Israelis go in after them--the Palestinian was to ask the combatants to give themselves up. When the Israelis were ordered to stop doing that practice, they had no choice but to go in themselves, sometimes with tragic results. It was a no win situation.

The continuing internal schism between the more moderate and secular Fatah and the Islamist Hamas has not only left the Palestinian leadership in disarray, but has also made meaningful peace negotiations with Israel next to impossible. Moreover, continued internal disunity continues to thwart reconstruction efforts in Gaza, which are urgently needed in the aftermath of Israel's military offensive earlier this year. Thus, the outcome of the negotiations in Cairo will have repercussions for Palestinians and Israelis - and, indeed, for anyone with a stake in the Middle East peace process.

"When people have a better understanding of who we are, then they understand our actions in Gaza better," said Ido Aharoni of the foreign ministry, who heads the Brand Israel project.

But the idea that a campaign can achieve this is challenged by some.

"Branding per se is good for a country like the UK or Sweden or Australia ... they have no problems," said Rommey Hassman, lecturer at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya.

"It's not good for countries who have conflicts ... who have an image problem. I don't think it's going to work."

Foxfyre wrote:

But so far as human shields go, the closest thing to re Israeli policy was the practice of sending a Palestinian into buildings where terrorists/combatants were suspected of hiding rather than have Israelis go in after them--the Palestinian was to ask the combatants to give themselves up. When the Israelis were ordered to stop doing that practice, they had no choice but to go in themselves, sometimes with tragic results. It was a no win situation.

Using Palestinian civilians in place of soldiers in a situations that can have "tragic results" for a soldier (one has to assume that it can be equally tragic for the civilian sent in in his stead) is exactly using that civilian as a human shield. If the police were raiding your neighbors house, and had reason to believe the occupants were armed in dangerous, and so decided to send you in instead so that they wouldn't get hurt, would that work for you?

Where is the order from the Palestinian leadership to stop using their own women and children as human shields?

It's up to you to provide the proof, or you are the liar here.

She doesn't have to respond to your stupid queries about "all, most, 50% or anything else" when you yourself exaggerate what other people say. Quit being such an ass. Most of us make that kind of mistake.[/quote]

Reuters reports that Israel's new government wants with a 'Brand Israel project' to change the impact made on ordinary people:

Quote:

"When people have a better understanding of who we are, then they understand our actions in Gaza better," said Ido Aharoni of the foreign ministry, who heads the Brand Israel project.

But the idea that a campaign can achieve this is challenged by some.

"Branding per se is good for a country like the UK or Sweden or Australia ... they have no problems," said Rommey Hassman, lecturer at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya.

"It's not good for countries who have conflicts ... who have an image problem. I don't think it's going to work."