Examining the state repression‐terrorism nexus: Dynamic relationships among repressive counterterrorism actions, terrorist targets, and deadly terrorist violence in Israel

• Author: David McDowall,Henda Y. Hsu
• Published date: 01 May 2020
• Date: 01 May 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12491

DOI: 10.1111/1745-9133.12491

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

COUNTERTERRORISM

Examining the state repression-terrorism nexus:

Dynamic relationships among repressive

counterterrorism actions, terrorist targets,

and deadly terrorist violence in Israel

Henda Y. Hsu1David McDowall2

1University of Houston—Clear Lake

2University at Albany, State Universityof New York

Correspondence

HendaY. Hsu, College of Human Sciences and

Humanities,University of Houston-Clear Lake,

2700Bay Area Blvd, Houston, TX 77058.

Email:hsuh@uhcl.edu

Research Summary: This study assesses the impact of

state repressive counterterrorism actions on terrorists’ tar-

geting and lethality of the terrorism landscape in Israel.

Using systematic data on government responses to terror-

ism and an empirical model that addresses reciprocal rela-

tionships, we analyze dynamical interactions betweentypes

of government repression with attacks against civilian or

government targets, and deadly terrorist violence. Contrary

to public policy pronouncements of forcefully fighting ter-

rorism to eradicate terrorist threats, our results suggest that

repressive counterterrorism actions by the state increase

terror and deadly violence. Importantly, the results indi-

cate that these unintended escalatory or backlash effects are

dependent on the scope of government repression, the type

of terrorist targets, and the lethality of terrorism.

Policy Implications: Our findings provide insight into par-

ticular behaviors and exchangeswithin the state repression–

terrorism nexus that evoke and prolong terrorist violence.

Centered on key aspects of terrorist activities involving tar-

get choice and deadly violence, our ecological study con-

tributes to the development of a systematic understanding

of specific impacts of government policies on terrorism. In

all, constructing an empirically rigorous evidence base for

Criminology & Public Policy. 2020;19:483–514. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/capp © 2020 American Society of Criminology 483

484 HSU AND MCDOWALL

terrorism prevention policies and practices is essential for

ensuring the protection of human lives and public resources

from terrorism.

KEYWORDS

backlash, counterterrorism, state repression, TERRORISM, time series

Responding forcefully to acts of terror has long been a pillar of counterterrorism policy and prac-

tices. Spurred by the disproportionate impact of spectacular terrorist attacks that casts terrorists as

indomitable foes, repressive countermeasures that punish, deter, or incapacitate terrorists commonly

form the basic tenets of government counterterrorism strategies (Crenshaw & LaFree, 2017; LaFree,

Dugan, & Miller, 2015). Despite the popularity of aggressive responses to terrorism, research on

government repressive actions on terrorism (Dugan & Chenoweth, 2012b; LaFree, Dugan, & Korte,

2009) and, as a whole, dissent (Davenport, 2007) suggests that harsh measures do not always pro-

duce intended, preventative outcomes. Indeed, repressive government measures can reduce or deter

future terrorist attacks (Bejan & Parkin, 2015), and they can escalate and prolong terrorist violence

(McCauley & Moskalenko, 2008; Miller, 2007; Nevin, 2003). Moreover, research on the relationships

between government repression and terrorism (and political dissent more generally) shows the differ-

ential impact of state coercion toward offenders and civilians on backlash mobilization and violence

(Benmelech, Berrebi, & Klor, 2015; Kalyvas, 2006, 2012; Khawaja, 1994).

Given the impressive exchanges between the state and terrorists, criminological scholars have

increasingly focused on testing aspects of the consequences of counterterrorism. Traditionally,

studies of counterterrorism outcomes have often relied on limited data of government actions to stop

terrorism, with interventions typically self-identified by the authors as worthy of examination and

measured as dichotomous variables (Dugan & Chenoweth, 2013). Consequently, oversimplification

of state policy choices precludes a systematic understanding of the impacts of counterterrorism

strategies on terrorism, as well as the effects of terrorist violence on the nature of government

responses to terrorism (Chenoweth & Dugan, 2016; Crenshaw & LaFree, 2017; Dugan & Chenoweth,

2013; Miller, 2007). As such, the inconsistent evidence from prior research as to whether govern-

ment repression reduces or escalates terrorist attacks may be due, in part, to limitations of current

counterterrorism data (Chenoweth & Dugan, 2011). In response to the substantive shortcoming

of a lack of data on government responses to terrorism (Duyvesteyn, 2008; Sandler, 2014), the

recent advent of the Government Actions in Terror Environments (GATE) database affords new

opportunities for empirical examinations of the dynamic links between counterterrorism and ter-

rorism. By using the recently created GATE-Israel database that methodically records a full range

of the Israeli government’s counterterrorism behaviors (Dugan & Chenoweth, 2013, 2017) and

terrorist attack data from the Global Terrorism Database (GTD), this study takes an interest in

explaining systematic changes to the nature and characteristics of terrorist attacks in relation to state

repression.

As recently discussed by Crenshaw and LaFree (2017, pp. 191–192), ecological studies examin-

ing the natural variation between government counterterrorism actions and terrorist attacks are rare

and represent an innovative approach to modeling the effects of counterterrorism policies. Further-

more, this line of empirical inquiry on whether state counterterrorism actions reduce or increase future

terrorism remains an open question, with differing conclusions reached depending on the kinds of

HSU AND MCDOWALL 485

methodological approaches used (Crenshaw & LaFree, 2017). In particular, using the GATE-Israel

database, Dugan and Chenoweth (2012b) found that repressive government actions produce backlash

in the form of increasing the total number of terrorist attacks and that conciliatory measures reduced

attacks. Citing the need to account for reciprocal relationships between terrorist attacks and government

actions, however, Bejan and Parkin(2015) reanalyzed the GATE-Israel data and found that repressive

Israeli actions reduced the total amount of future terrorist attacks and that conciliatory actions by Israel

had no effect on terrorist attacks.

Given that the divergent findings from these two preceding ecological studies may be attributed to

variations in their analytical approaches (Bejan & Parkin, 2015; Fisher & Becker, 2019), the present

study incorporates some of the key methodological features used in the aforementioned two studies

to bring forth an empirical examination of dynamic relationships between state repression and ter-

rorism in Israel. Specifically, our analytical models account for reciprocal effects, different tactical

terms in Israel, and various kinds of government repression. To complement the recent analyses of the

GATE-Israel data and address the importance of assessing the impacts of government counterterror-

ism policies with different analytical methods and assumptions (Fisher & Becker, 2019; Forst, 2017),

data transformations, generalized impulse response functions, and sampling distributions generated by

Monte Carlo methods are also performed in the main and online supplementary analyses of the current

study.

Although the number or frequency of terrorist attacks at large is a common and useful gen-

eral metric for evaluating the impact of government counterterrorism actions, there are other sig-

nificant dimensions of the impact of government responses to terrorism that warrant investigation.

Doing so is particularly useful when rigorous empirical evaluations and evidence of government

responses to terrorism to inform terrorism policy and practices are in short supply (Crenshaw &

LaFree, 2017; LaFree & Freilich, 2019; Lum, Kennedy, & Sherley, 2006). To offer a more thor-

ough understanding of the association between state repression and terrorism, our analysis focuses

on two key aspects of counterterrorism outcomes that have not been explicitly modeled by past eco-

logical counterterrorism studies in general, and with data from the GATE-Israel database in partic-

ular. Accordingly, the purpose of the present study is to examine potential dynamic relationships

among state repression, lethality of the terrorism landscape, and terrorist target selections. To do

this, we estimate vector autoregressive (VAR) models to analyze closed-loop systems comprising gov-

ernment and civilian targets, casualty attacks, and discriminate and indiscriminate Israeli repressive

actions.

In all, our study’s inquiry of bidirectional effectsfor repressive government counterterrorism actions

directed toward terror suspects or the population at large and the lethality of the terrorism landscape

and terrorists’ targeting of the state and civilians provides for a unique investigation of how deter-

rence and backlash theoretical models can be further operationalized within the state repression–

terrorism nexus. As such, our study, with systematic counterterrorism data, allows us to provide empir-

ical evidence of strategic interactions between the state and terrorists in ways not previously done

before.

This article proceeds with a review of the literature examining the effects of state repression on

terrorism followed by a review of targeted crime prevention strategies and its application to countert-

errorism. Next, we posit a series of hypotheses regarding the impact of repressive measures on the

frequency of attacks on government and civilian targets, as well as the lethality of terrorism. Overall,

we found that the use of repressive counterterrorism measures by Israel resulted in backlash effects

within cycles of violence that escalated terrorist attacks and state repression toward terrorists and the

population. We conclude with a discussion of the findings, implications for counterterrorism policies,

limitations of the present study, and avenues for future research.