Using Deterrence Strategies to Combat Antisemitism

Deterrence, in its simplest form, is a strategy aimed at preventing an action by threatening negative consequences. It operates by making the potential costs of an action outweigh its benefits, thereby discouraging people or groups from engaging in unwanted behavior. However, deterrence can be complex and unpredictable. It’s challenging to determine if the intended message is effectively internalized by the other side, and often, we only know that deterrence has failed when an undesired action occurs. Despite these challenges, there are valuable lessons and practices from deterrence theory that can be adapted to develop innovative approaches to combating antisemitism.

Nadav Eyal, in his interview with Dan Senor yesterday, discussed the aftermath of the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran while under the protection of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. He underscored the use of “decapitation” strategies—targeting key figures to disrupt organizational operations and signal severe consequences for hostile actions. This tactic, part of a broader deterrence strategy, aims to influence behavior by ensuring that the perceived costs of an action outweigh its benefits and to send a clear message: Don’t or else…

In the fight against antisemitism, thinking about deterrence needs to happen carefully and humbly, being aware of significant differences. Who are we trying to deter? Is it a person, a group, or a country? What, from the deterrence framework can we incorporate and what tools can we develop to operationalize deterrence in this specific domain?

In the post-October 7th world, we have seen a stockpile of ideas and solutions emerge along the spectrum of threat, crime, and punishment. The withdrawal of donor funding from academic institutions that refused to denounce and outlaw antisemitic behaviors, an act of punishment meant to deter administrators from continuing along that path, signals what could happen to other schools. How effective is this strategy? The jury is still out. Withdrawing money from one place could, in fact, create a vacuum that falls into the hands of well-funded hostile entities. Other examples include pushing for strict legal penalties for hate speech and related offenses, such as criminal charges, fines, and civil lawsuits against those who propagate or engage in antisemitic activities. Addressing antisemitism requires more than reactive measures; it demands proactive strategies. The incubation and development of technological tools that support, speed up, and scale such measures are changing the rules of the game, enabling decision-makers to think differently about innovating the critical battle against not only antisemitism but also anti-Americanism and essentially anti-Westernism, to stand a fighting chance against the “West is Next” plans.

Innovating in our approach to antisemitism means rethinking traditional methods and embracing new frameworks that reflect the complexities of today’s society. This involves not just penalizing antisemitic actions but also preventing them by addressing their root causes. A comprehensive, deterrence-based approach can help reduce the prevalence of antisemitism and ensure that it is met with unwavering opposition. The challenge lies in creating a societal environment where antisemitism is not only legally penalized but also socially unacceptable and broadly condemned.