Maybe what is Happening makes a Case for Police, not Citizen Justice

   Does what is going on in Israel make a better argument for letting police handle violence as opposed to sending everyone out onto the streets with a weapon to defend themselves?
   In the past weeks, believing the number of attacks by Palestinians upon Israelis was terribly high, I wrote that perhaps arming the people is the way to deal with the violence. I reasoned that if the attacks are happening extremely often, and if the police cannot get there in time, then perhaps the populace needs to defend itself.
   Six days ago, I thought I had read somewhere that more than 1,000 attacks by the Palestinians upon Israelis had been committed. I've continued to search for a figure on how many attacks there have been, and have not found a count. But I'm now thinking the figure must be much, much less, but a fraction of that.
   What I am reading, is that only 11 Israelis have been killed while about 40 Palestinians have had their lives taken while attempting the attacks. That gives pause. If the count of attacks by the Palestinians is a high number, but the total of people being killed is not, then the wave of violence against the Israelis isn't very successful.
   Why?
   It appears the police are getting there in time to quell the attackers. Yes, sometimes the attackers are stopped by the armed citizens who are being attacked, but it seems the better share of attacks have been thwarted by the police.
   So, police work is working.
    I do wonder. Other than just a good police response, are there other reasons most of the attacks do not bring death? Or, am I wrong to believe there are a lot of attacks? If there are a lot of attacks, are the assailants incompetent?
    It is interesting that al-Jazeera and others are able to point to what is going on, and spin it that it is the Israelis who are the perpetrators of violence, what with so many Palestinians being killed by the Israeli police.
   Of that, I wonder if the Israeli police are shooting to kill, when killing the assailant might not be necessary. I do wonder, just as I wonder whether sometimes police in the U.S. shoot to kill too often.
If you can save a life, do it, even if it is an assailant's life.
   And, also, why are we not finding a count on the number of attacks? It seems that count is central to the story of what is going on. How can it not be being reported? Is the number of attacks not much above the 11 who have been killed, and therefore the 11 who have been killed is the only number we need?
   If about about 40 of the assailants have been killed while making the attacks, does that mean there have only been about 40 attacks? And, if those 40 attacks resulted in only 11 Israelis being killed, that still is not a very good success rate for the assailants.
   Thank heavens for that, but one wonders why they are not more successful.