PRINCETON, New Jersey — Every day in the Gaza Strip, strategic deterrence — the inhibition of attack by fear of punishment from superior military power — is being put to the test. The escalating spiral of violence by Israel and Gazan militants indicates not only that deterrence is failing, but also that its effectiveness depends on adherence to fundamental standards of morality.
Some security strategists and just war theorists argue that there may be nothing morally objectionable about deterrence in cases where the lives and welfare of a civilian population are not directly affected. The threat of retaliation that underpins its strategic effectiveness remains implicit and hypothetical.
However, when deterrence becomes indistinguishable from collective punishment — barred under international law by Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention — it is far less likely to achieve its intended result.