Israel’s Core Problem Isn’t Politics Or Policy – It’s That It’s An Artificial State

When people debate Israel, the conversation usually revolves around morality, security, or ideology. Rarely do they step back and ask a much more fundamental question: why does Israel face nearly constant crisis? The answer is structural—and it’s one that history has repeatedly shown is deadly for states: Israel is at its core an artificially created country.

Unlike nations that grew organically over centuries, Israel was imposed on a complex patchwork of people, cultures, and histories. Borders were drawn not by shared identity but by foreign powers, historical claims, and geopolitical convenience. The result is a state built on tension, not cohesion—a pressure cooker of competing claims that has never been resolved.

Look at Afghanistan. Its borders were drawn by outsiders with no regard for local realities. The result? Decades of collapse, insurgency, and war. Iraq, another artificial creation, has struggled for decades to maintain unity among deeply divided communities. These examples aren’t coincidences, they’re the predictable outcome of building a country on paper rather than in practice.

Israel faces a similar reality. Its foundation required displacing or subjugating existing populations, managing incompatible identities, and maintaining legitimacy under constant international scrutiny. The structural instability at its core is invisible in daily headlines but omnipresent in its politics, military policies, and societal fractures.

War, occupation, internal divisions, they aren’t just crises; they are the symptom of a deep rooted flaw. Artificial states almost never thrive. They survive through extraordinary force, political manipulation, or luck. Israel has managed to hold together so far, but history tells us that luck eventually runs out. The structural tensions baked into its creation are unlikely to disappear. At some point, the pressures of competing identities, unresolved territorial disputes, and external antagonism will shape its destiny in ways short-term politics cannot.

In short, Israel’s biggest problem isn’t a particular leader (although he is a far right prick), or a specific policy, or even the Palestinians. Its problem is that it is a state built on artificial foundations, and again history shows that such states rarely last indefinitely. Despite the IHRA definition of antisemitism, recognising this is nothing of the sort, it’s simply realism. The question is not whether Israel will face challenges, it is whether it can endure them.

Israel's trajectory follows a comparable path. The ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, characterised by cycles of violence, failed peace initiatives, and deep-seated mistrust, underscores the unsustainable nature of its foundation. The state's reliance on military might to maintain control over contested territories further alienates its neighbors and fuels regional instability.

The international community's inconsistent policies and shifting alliances exacerbate the situation, leaving Israel increasingly isolated. As global dynamics evolve, the support that once propped up this artificial construct wanes, further exposing its structural vulnerabilities.

Artificial states, lacking the cohesion of organically developed nations, often face existential crises. Israel's continued existence hinges on an unsustainable balance of power and external support. Absent a profound transformation, one that addresses the legitimate aspirations of all peoples in the region, it risks following the fate of other artificially constructed states: fragmentation, internal strife, and eventual collapse.

The writing is on the wall. Israel's downfall is not a matter of if, but when. And when it comes crashing down, it will be a cautionary tale for the world about the perils of imposing artificial states upon complicated and diverse regions.