A state that does not control the monopoly on violence will die
What has been happening in Judea and Samaria in recent years, and is expressed intensely in the events in Qusra, is a renunciation by parts of the Israeli right of institutional change in favor of dismantling the state's monopoly on force.
Ron Ben-Yishai's column regarding the loss of control by the State of Israel and the IDF in the face of groups of Jewish rioters in Qusra is understandable. It is difficult to witness this loss of control and impotence and not suspect a conspiracy or cooperation, intentional or otherwise. However, I believe this tendency misses something much deeper and more problematic.
The assumption that such failures must be the result of a conspiracy is a mistaken one, as it prevents us from addressing the core issue. And that core issue surfaces precisely from a right-wing perspective. The philosophy running from Machiavelli to Hobbes and Hayek views politics as it is, pointing to the clashing forces within it. From this emerges a simple understanding: the state does not need to fix the world or ensure the comfort of every citizen. It must be a 'Leviathan,' in Hobbes's terms—a monopoly on violence and a guardian of law and order. Therefore, the Mishna states: 'Pray for the welfare of the kingdom, for were it not for the fear of it, people would swallow each other alive.'
The simple fact is that a state that does not control the monopoly on violence will die. Such a state is a defeated Leviathan, dismantled piece by piece by competing and violent groups. The most important foundation of a state is its monopoly on force. Every action at the civil level must be translated into influence on state institutions, not their replacement.
What is happening in Judea and Samaria is a renunciation by parts of the Israeli right of institutional change in favor of dismantling the state's monopoly on power. From a right-wing angle, this is an abandonment of the 'slowly flowing waters of Shiloah' in favor of the ease and speed of militia-like organizations. In the short term, this feels like a victory, but in the long term, it erodes the very foundation upon which this state stands.
James Burnham, one of the greatest conservative and realist thinkers of the 20th century, showed that the engine of state progress is an institutional and balanced struggle between political forces. The end of the state begins when this struggle ceases to be political and institutional, and instead disintegrates into militias and fragmented power structures that kill the state 'Leviathan.'
No, this is not a conspiracy. It would be easier if it were. It is about a state that forgets to fulfill its most significant role: to maintain the monopoly on violence and dismantle any group that challenges it.
