The lynching of an Eritrean national on Sunday after he was wrongly assumed to be the perpetrator of a terrorist attack in Beersheba means that Israel's campaign against the wave of terrorism has reached a crossroads. This crossroads is imbued with moral dilemmas. The likelihood of an Israeli mishap in the ongoing effort to curb terrorism increased over time because the terrorist wave continued. The unfortunate turn of events that resulted in the Eritrean man's death on Sunday could very well have happened in some other attack, in some other city. There was no way of avoiding such pitfalls. The answers we have to provide are as vexing as the questions. The security chief at the central bus station in Beersheba mistakenly believed the Eritrean was a terrorist and shot him. The passersby, who were obviously still overwhelmed by the attack, behaved savagely and lynched him. In an effort to avoid these unintended consequences, law enforcement's response to future attacks might be compromised. The ongoing debate over the conduct of first responders could lead to a situation in which a police officer decides to stand down his weapon even as a knife-wielding terrorist runs toward his next victim. That will only prolong such an attack, because police officers will go out of their way to use non-lethal means to overpower the assailant. This go-slow approach will result in more innocent people being injured or killed. The most important takeaway from the Beersheba attack, where the attacker was killed after he had already injured nine people, is this: Terrorists who are in the midst of perpetrating their act should be shot at on the spot, without any second-guessing or philosophical deliberations. I believe this approach should have been adopted even in the case of the female terrorist in Afula who refused to drop her knife. Rather than being taken out on the spot, she was shot and taken into custody. Some were critical of the decision to shoot her but in her interrogation she confessed that she wanted to kill a Jew and become a shahida (a martyr). In that case, why was her life spared? Should officers have withheld their fire just because of her sad eyes? This tough approach, which I support, could occasionally result in the unintentional firing on innocents like the Eritrean on Sunday. Such mistakes come with the territory. That said, there are those who have used this approach as a dangerous and harmful license to engage in mob-like behavior. On the one hand, law enforcement officers are told they should shoot at every terrorist who refuses to surrender, but on the other hand there is a very clear prohibition against targeting someone who has surrendered. These two directives create a dissonance that make security forces less confident when they confront terrorists. However, there is simply no other choice but to make sure the public follows these two parallel paths: yes, take out the terrorist on the spot, but make sure to avoid such horrific lynchings. This bifurcated policy is a test. Will our military leaders, law enforcement officers, behavioral scientists and educators be able to apply proportionality, keep their resolve and show a balanced approach as this new terrorist era continues to unfold for the foreseeable future? There is no magic solution.
