How long can a „violent state” survive? What does history tell us?—From Israel’s perspective

Historical experience shows that state structures and systems based exclusively or predominantly on violence, oppression, and the systematic division of the population its duration varies widely – it can take anywhere from a few decades to even centuries – but because of their internal structure in the long run, they inevitably become unstable and collapse.

The fields of history and political science have identified several key factors and patterns that determine the lifespan and fate of an oppressive regime.

1. Key factors affecting shelf life

The longevity of a violent state depends largely on the resources and support it possesses in addition to brute force:

• External legitimacy and geopolitical support: Many oppressive regimes remain in power not because of their own internal strength, but because of their external allies. As long as a global or regional superpower has a strategic, economic, or military interest in maintaining the state, the system can remain functional despite internal resistance. If this external protective umbrella disappears, the collapse is often extremely rapid (as was the case with the Eastern European socialist bloc in 1989).

• Resources and economic base: Maintaining the apparatus of repression (the military, police, intelligence services, surveillance systems) is extremely costly. Systems that have abundant natural resources (e.g., oil, raw materials) or stable external financing are able to buy loyalty and finance violence for much longer.

• The cohesion of the inner circle: Authoritarian states function effectively as long as the ruling elite and the leadership of the armed forces remain monolithic, that is, united. As soon as cracks appear in the ranks of the elite due to economic crisis, external pressure, or internal power struggles, the system becomes vulnerable.

2. Historical models and experiences

Throughout history, various types of oppressive and violent regimes have emerged, each with its own life cycle:

A) Traditional colonial empires and settler-colonial systems

Throughout history, empires built on conquest and the brutal oppression of indigenous populations (e.g., certain phases of Spanish, British, or French colonization) have even for centuries were able to survive. This was due to the enormous asymmetry in technological and military superiority. In the modern era, however, as the idea of national self-determination spread and local resistance became more organized, these systems became unsustainable. The wave of decolonization in the second half of the 20th century demonstrated that the moral, human, and economic costs of maintaining colonial oppression would sooner or later lead to political crisis and the abandonment of the system even in the colonizing countries themselves.

B) Institutionalized racial oppression (Apartheid)

The South African apartheid regime (1948–1994) is a prime example of how long a modern state—one built on minority rule and the disenfranchisement of the majority, and operating a brutal apparatus of violence—can survive.

• Duration: Approximately for 46 years remained standing.

• The cause of the collapse: Internal armed and civilian resistance (e.g., the ANC), economic unsustainability (the exclusion of the majority population limited the domestic market), as well as international isolation and cultural and economic boycotts, collectively forced the peaceful, negotiated dismantling of the system.

C) Ideological and totalitarian dictatorships

The totalitarian regimes of the 20th century (Nazi Germany, Stalinist Soviet Union, Khmer Rouge) used violence to completely transform society.

• Short-term catastrophic systems: The Third Reich for 12 years, Pol Pot’s regime lasted only for 4 years existed. These systems employed such a radical escalation of internal and external violence that it quickly led to a full-scale external military conflict (war) and, consequently, to the regime’s destruction.

• Long-term bureaucratic oppression: The Soviet Union for 74 years remained in place. Following the brutal Stalinist terror, the system shifted to a form of bureaucratic, administrative oppression, but ultimately, economic stagnation, technological backwardness, and internal exhaustion caused by the arms race led to its collapse.

3. Why Do They Inevitably Fail? (Internal Contradictions)

According to political science analyses, violent states bring about their own downfall due to the following structural flaws:

1. A complete lack of legitimacy: For a state to function stably, it requires a certain degree of voluntary compliance with the law on the part of its citizens. If a state relies solely on fear, obedience will last only as long as the fear of retribution outweighs the desire for freedom or the mere instinct for survival. When the economic or social situation becomes unbearable, the wall of fear crumbles.

2. The trap of the „security dilemma”: The more violence an oppressive state uses to crush resistance, the more it radicalizes the population, which in turn generates even greater resistance. The state responds to this with even greater repression. This vicious cycle consumes the state’s material and human resources.

3. Information vacuum: In authoritarian states, there is no free press or freedom of speech. Because criticism is suppressed, the leadership loses touch with reality, and intelligence agencies often report only what the dictator wants to hear. This leads to flawed strategic decisions, economic blind faith, and ultimately, disastrous political moves.

Summary

Violent states, viewed from a historical perspective temporary anomalies. They can be extremely long-lasting (they can survive for several decades or even a century or two if geopolitical and economic conditions are favorable to them), but due to the accumulation of internal tensions, they are constantly teetering on the brink of moral and structural collapse.

As history has shown time and again—and as the Arabic proverb often cited in the Palestinian and broader contexts goes—: „You can’t hide the sun with a sieve”. Reality, the peoples’ desire for self-determination, and justice cannot be suppressed indefinitely; sooner or later, truth and change will prevail.

The functioning, history, and current structure of the State of Israel fits perfectly within the framework of violent or oppressive state models studied by political science. When examining Israel from this perspective, researchers and historians most often focus on the the settler-colonial model, the a form of modern apartheid, as well as documented in Frank Luntz’s hasbara handbook narrative control strategy is used.

Let’s examine how the sustainability factors and internal contradictions mentioned earlier manifest themselves in the case of Israel, and what historical experience suggests about its future.

1. Incorporating the Israeli structure into the models

A) The settler-colonial nature

Israel is not a classic colonial empire (like the British or French ones) that exploited the local population from afar. It is much more similar to the American, Australian, or South African models, where the immigrant population sought not only to dominate but also to replace (displace) the indigenous population.

• The issue of sustainability: Historically, settler-colonial states (such as the United States or Australia) were only able to achieve lasting stability after the indigenous population had been almost completely annihilated or reduced to a negligible minority. In the case of Israel, this has not succeeded: the Palestinian population has remained demographically insurmountable, so the state is forced to employ continuous, daily physical and legal violence to maintain the status quo.

B) The Apartheid Model and Legal Duality

As evidenced by the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Ordinance and subsequent census data, there has always been a deep-rooted majority in the region. Today, Israel maintains a system between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea in which rights are based on national-ethnic affiliation.

• In the West Bank, Jewish settlers are subject to Israeli civil law, while Palestinians living just a few meters away are subject to a military justice system dating back to the British Mandate and the Ottoman era. This structural division bears an uncanny resemblance to the internal logic of South African apartheid.

2. How do sustainability factors apply to Israel?

If we examine why this system has been able to survive for decades despite internal tensions, we find precisely the pillars described earlier:

• Geopolitical safety net (The most important factor): Israel’s existence and military superiority depend to an extraordinary degree on the unconditional diplomatic (veto power in the UN), financial, and military support of the United States and Western powers.

• The technology and defense industries as an economic foundation: Israel has turned the occupation and its apparatus of repression into a profit-generating industry. It sells surveillance technologies tested on the Palestinian population (e.g., the Pegasus spyware), drones, cyberweapons, and artificial intelligence-based systems globally, thereby financing its own apparatus of oppression.

• Frank Luntz’s narrative control: As the The Israel Project's 2009 Glossary Despite this, the state has for decades successfully employed linguistic manipulation (e.g., using the term „disputed” territories instead of „occupied”) to maintain its international legitimacy in the eyes of Western public opinion.

3. Internal contradictions that lead to instability

Based on historical experience, the State of Israel has also begun to fall into the structural traps that make it unsustainable in its current form in the long run:

1. The escalation of the security dilemma: Israel is attempting to ensure its security by reinforcing the „walls” and intensifying technological repression. However, as has always been the case throughout history, this leads to the complete radicalization of the Palestinian population and a resurgence of resistance, which in turn requires even more military spending and a state of constant war readiness.

2. The erosion of international legitimacy: In the age of social media and the instant flow of information, Luntz-style PR tactics are becoming increasingly ineffective. Perceptions of Israel within Western civil society, particularly among younger generations, are deteriorating drastically. Accusations of apartheid and colonialism have become official not only at the level of human rights organizations (Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch) but also in international courts.

3. The divide between the domestic elite and society: The inevitable harbinger of the downfall of violent states is when cracks begin to appear within the ruling class. In Israel, the internal fault lines between the secular, more liberal technocratic elite and the radical, religious-nationalist settler movement now threaten the functioning of the state apparatus and the army.

Conclusion

Israel's historical cycle is currently at the during the critical phase is. Although it is extremely powerful militarily and technologically, its system—based solely on brute force, the denial of rights, and walls—is, by every rule of political science, unsustainable in the long run.

Just as the point came in South Africa when the costs of external economic and moral pressure and internal resistance became higher than the benefits of maintaining the system, Israel, too, cannot escape the laws of history. The truth and a people’s desire for freedom—as Joan Peters and Frank Luntz’s manipulative experiments have shown—cannot be hidden in the long run.