Two (Israeli) settlers arrested after police discover weapons cache

The Jerusalem Post ^ | 13 February 2003 | THE JERUSALEM POST INETRNET STAFF

[anotherview]

Mar. 13, 2003
Two settlers arrested after police discover weapons cache
By THE JERUSALEM POST INTERNET STAFF

Two settlers from the same family were arrested Thursday after police found a weapons cache in their home.

Officers from the Judea and Samaria police station found thousands of bullets of different types, smoke grenades, tear gas canisters, flares and other ammunition in their home.

The two have been taken in for questioning as police tried to establish how they acquired the ammunition and how they intended to use it.

[anotherview]

While the Palestinians allow and encourage everyone to take up arms and kill Jews, the Israelis do not permit the same to be done to the Palestinians. Once again, the differences between the two are clear.

[Mr. Mojo]

What the heck is wrong with having a weapons cache? If I were a settler, and Palestinian terrorists surrounded me on all sides, I'd have one for sure.

[anotherview]

What the heck is wrong with having a weapons cache?

Oh, it's illegal under Israeli law.

[Mr. Mojo]

I know, but it shouldn't be.

[Zathras]

One Arab: "Look out, they are throwing flares at us!"
Another : "Well at least they aren't throwing bullets at us."

[ConservativeConvert]

The Israelis should launch their own "intifada" against their sworn Arab enemies. Imagine what would happen if vigilante justice became the rule and Israelis took it upon themselves to retaliate ruthlessly and without mercy against their Palestinian "neighbors"...

[anotherview]

I do not want to see us stoop to the same level as the Palestinians. If we surrender our morals then we are no better than they are. Sorry, I want to see the rule of law preserved, and I do not want to see vigilanteism. Let the IDF do their job.

[ConservativeConvert]

Any effort to "play by the rules" when confronting an enemy that abides by none whatsoever is bound to failure. An attempt to maintain the "moral high ground" when facing a bloodthirsy enemy that occupies a completely diffent plane of reality and has a fundamentally different concept of morality is futile. Until the Israelis lose all compunction about using brutal, ruthless and overwhelming force they will be consigned to a fate of endless grief. While your insistence about the preservation of "morality" is admirable and, indeed, honorable...it is misguided and useless. The Israelis are entangled in a struggle for their existence and in such a struggle nothing but the outcome is important. Given the history of Jewish persecution and, in particular, the nightmarish reality of the Holocaust, how can any Jew ignore the power of force. As a theoretical question: If the Jews could have avoided their wholesale slaughter at the hands of the Nazis by utilizing no-holds-barred violence against their oppressors, would you still counsel restraint? The answer can only be no. Whether undertaken by the IDF or the man in the street, a breathtakingly merciless military answer is the ONLY solution.

[anotherview]

There is a huge difference between counseling restraint (which I do NOT do) and endorsing anarchy, which is what vigilateism is. I believe in the rule of law. I do not believe Israel's hands should be tied in prosecuting the war with the Palestinians as they now are. I do believe that the IDF should prosecute that war, not individuals taking their revenge on Palestinian civillians.

[wcbtinman]

"Sorry, I want to see the rule of law preserved..."

Taking away the ability of a man to defend himself and his family against clear and identifiable enemies is not law, it's tragedy.

If this scenario were to happen here in the US, I would do everything I could to kill the bastard trying to make me defenseless, and then to kill the bastard who sent him.

If you really want to see the rule of law preserved, then kill Arafat and all of his ilk.

[wcbtinman]

BTW, you had better go look at a dictionary. There is a huge difference between anarchy and vigilantism.

Vigilantism is not anarchy.

[anotherview]

Correction: Vigilanteism LEADS TO anarchy. Better?