Originally posted by Sandwich
The social attitudes are not our job to try to change; they do not directly threaten Israeli civillians. The Palestinian terrorism isn't our job to change either, but the difference is that those social attitudes don't directly threaten the lives of Israeli citizens - the terrorism does.
If they truly wanted peace, the Palestinian Authority would have dealt with the terrorism that some of their people took part in, but they didn't.
If the Palestinians want to be considered as serious about peace, they can easily exchange the cirriculum of hatred in their educational systems with one that at least teaches tolerance.
But is invading them encouraging a change in that attitude? Don't get me wrong - I understand the desire for security - but is there not a risk of aggravating the
cause?
You may not feel responsible for changing social attitudes, but it doesn't mean you should ignore them - especially with the consequences we've seen of those attitudes. Certainly, I don't think sending troops into Palestinian areas will give the PA any more ability or encouragement to reform their own system and tackle terrorism, but rather will hurt it by eroding the support they might have to do so.
My fear would be that it would actually help to 'legitimise' terrorist activity in general, and certainly attacks upon Israeli troops and Israelis in general within the Palestinian territories.
Albeit this is possibly taking this topic a bit OT now (?)... anyways, in summary I think short term security has to be weighed against the long term consequences. IMO invading someone - regardless of the reasons behind it - will rarely encourage them to not want to attack you in return. I do recognise the inherent difficulty of the situation when they also would appear not to wish to stop of their own volition, of course.
