On the Monopoly of Violence: Ideal Types of Settler Colonial Violence and the Habitus of Summud

Political sociologists have long articulated state-making as the concentration of power and violence within state apparatuses. However, classical theories have often overlooked distinctive characteristics of settler colonial nation-state formation, whose raison d'état is the preservation of settler sovereignty and supremacy. Unlike traditional states that centralize violence within formal institutions, settler colonial states are marked by the dispersal of power and violence to settler-citizens, effectively blurring the boundaries between state and society. These states rely on practices of dispossession, appropriation, and elimination to assert and maintain settler domination, often empowering civilians as extensions of state authority. This paper takes Israel as a case study, identifying four divergent ideal types of settler colonial violence to analyze the state's unique features. In particular, it argues that Israel's settler colonial project is characterized by a relatively dispersed form of sovereignty, wherein violence is not solely the purview of the state but also enacted by settlers themselves, in collaboration with or at times in defiance of state institutions. This dynamic complicates classical theories of sovereignty and state violence, prompting a reevaluation of the state’s monopoly on violence in such contexts. The paper further investigates how the application of violence in Israel is contingent upon specific political and social dynamics, and dialectical interactions with the indigenous Palestinian population’s sumud (steadfastness) and decolonial resistance. By tracing these interactions, the analysis highlights the ways in which state violence in Israel operates through both formal mechanisms of governance and informal, diffuse networks. Central to this discussion is an exploration of the “Dignity Intifada” in May 2021 and the genocidal war since October 7, 2023, which serve as critical moments. By comprehending material and symbolic processes shaping the persistence of settler colonialism in its different formations, the article contributes to a nuanced understanding how “war-by-other-means” and indigenous resistance both endure.