On the final morning of the 1967 Six-Day War, the Egyptian town of Ras Sedr, on the coast of the Red Sea, was reminiscent of Saint-Tropez on the French Riviera. The Israeli soldiers who were there were contemplating taking a dip in the ocean, when three of them, who had entered one of the shelled buildings, came upon several Egyptian soldiers, who they believed were dead. But not all of them were dead, and one wounded Egyptian officer, literally lying in wait, waited for the Israeli soldiers to turn their back and head out of the building before releasing the pin on a grenade and rolling it toward them. They were all killed. Since that day, I'm no longer confused by ambiguous rules of engagement. The incident in Ras Sedr has come to mind several times in the past few weeks, especially since a female terrorist was shot in the leg after coming at a group of soldiers in Afula, brandishing a knife and shouting murderous slogans. The military investigation into the incident foolishly deemed that she might not have been a terrorist, but rather a disturbed individual. Were Israeli soldiers expected to channel Sigmund Freud and psychoanalyze her in the middle of all that drama? She came at them with her weapon drawn and her intent clear -- of course they should have opened fire. Even if, for the sake of argument, she is a disturbed individual who was hoping to get shot, can anyone be sure that she was not trying to lure the soldiers closer, perhaps so she could detonate an explosive belt, had she been wearing one? After all, even the military investigator agreed she had a death wish. In the course of a terrorist attack, unless the terrorist drops his weapon, puts his hands up and declares his surrender, he or she should be shot, and security forces would be wise to remember that even once captured, terrorists may still harbor nefarious intensions. Rapid response and engaging is important for another reason: It restores order and protects innocent civilians. Statistics clearly show the chances a terrorist has of surviving the very attack he plans to carry out are slim. We know how many individuals have chosen to carry out terrorist attacks, but we do not know how many people are planning attacks. The rules of engagement, however, only go so far. Once a terrorist has dropped his weapon and declares his surrender, security forces must be allowed to take him into custody. Lynching is unacceptable. It is not the Jewish-democratic way. The rage felt by the crowds seeking to exact vengeance on the terrorists who perpetrated the attacks in Rishon Lezion and Netanya on Monday is understandable, but it is still immoral, unacceptable, and damaging to Israel's international image. Footage of both scenes shows security forces fighting on two fronts, to subdue the terrorist and to ward off the crowds. They were in the right. Restraint plays a key role in Israel's fight against those seeking to harm it.
