The Washington Post

Israel, Hamas, and micro-deterrence

Against my better judgment, I write to offer a tentative thought about the escalating violence between Israel and Hamas. To be clear, this post says nothing whatsoever about justice or blame. It is merely a tentative thought — a question, really — about deterrence.

Israel prides itself on its measured and calibrated response to Hamas rockets and mortars. But I wonder if there is a downside to this careful calibration: unpredictability. The calibration is, as it were, macro-calibration, not micro-calibration. A Hamas fighter firing a mortar knows that he is one of many firing mortars, and he knows that these mortars collectively will provoke Israeli retaliation. But he does not know quite what the extent of the retaliation will be.  And, more importantly, he does not have the sense that there is any marginal retaliation for his mortar in particular.  At the margin, firing his mortar may seem to him to be “free.”

I have been wondering what would happen if Israel took the following position: For every rocket or mortar fired from Gaza into Israel, Israel will fire, say, five missiles at Hamas targets in Gaza. Not four, not six: exactly five. If this were Israel’s announced and enforced policy, then any given Hamas fighter would perhaps have a far more immediate and personal sense of deterrence. As he contemplates firing a mortar at Israel, he would know with certainty that, if he fires, then exactly five missiles will land on his Hamas brethren in Gaza. He would know that, in effect, he is pulling six triggers at once: one aimed at Israel and five aimed at Hamas. One imagines that, under such circumstances, he might at least think twice. Cf. tit-for-tat.

To the extent that Hamas is perhaps more decentralized and less hierarchical than a traditional military, it might be particularly important for deterrence to work at the operational level: for each individual fighter to be somehow deterred from firing his particular mortar. I wonder if this sort of automatic, mathematical response might achieve that sort of micro-deterrent effect.  Would such a policy ultimately produce less bloodshed and more peace?

Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz is a Professor of Law at Georgetown, a Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute, and an occasional Broadway producer.



Success! Check your inbox for details. You might also like:

Please enter a valid email address

See all newsletters

Show Comments

Sign up for email updates from the "Confronting the Caliphate" series.

You have signed up for the "Confronting the Caliphate" series.

Thank you for signing up
You'll receive e-mail when new stories are published in this series.
Most Read



Success! Check your inbox for details.

See all newsletters

Your Three. Videos curated for you.
Play Videos
This isn't your daddy's gun club
A look inside the world of Candomblé
It's in the details: Five ways to enhance your kitchen makeover
Play Videos
A fighter pilot helmet with 360 degrees of sky
The rise and fall of baseball cards
Is fencing the answer to brain health?
Play Videos
John Lewis, 'Marv the Barb' and the politics of barber shops
How to prevent 'e-barrassment'
The art of tortilla-making
Play Videos
Circus nuns: These sisters are no act
How hackers can control your car from miles away
How the new credit card chip makes purchases more secure
Next Story
Eugene Volokh · July 15, 2014

To keep reading, please enter your email address.

You’ll also receive from The Washington Post:
  • A free 6-week digital subscription
  • Our daily newsletter in your inbox

Please enter a valid email address

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Please indicate agreement.

Thank you.

Check your inbox. We’ve sent an email explaining how to set up an account and activate your free digital subscription.