With the referendum vote out of the way, both Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post address the collecting of weapons from settlers so as to avoid the possibility of confrontation leading to gun shots. This raises some tough practical issues.
First and foremost of course is the reason why those living in Gaza and the West Bank are permitted to have weapons in the first place whilst for a resident of Jerusalem like myself getting a license for a pistol would be difficult if not impossible. Settlers have weapons in order to protect themselves. Whilst they are living in areas, often surrounded by hostile towns and villages, they must surely be afforded the right to protect themselves just as they have been up until now.
The issue of to whom a ban would be extended is also problematic. Each settlement has a quick response team in case of an armed attack whilst soldiers who live on settlements all have personal firearms. Surely it would be impractical and illogical to require them to hand over their weapons?
As long as these issues exist (and I don't see how they can cease to do so), I don't see how weapons can be collected up without endangering lives. A partial collection might be possible but that would surely defeat the object of the exercise?
I am sure that the vast majority of settlers wouldn't contemplate using their weapons against Israelis. That the possibility exists however, must be acknowledged and taken into consideration in planning the withdrawal, with appropriate measures in place for those who even threaten the use of firearms.
p.s. brownie points if you can tell me where the title's from.....