"Like a Chess Game": Radical Right-Wing Activists Explain their Part in Violent Clashes with the State

Violent clashes between citizens and the state raise several questions regarding the circumstances under which protests turn violent. First, a democracy is supposed to provide citizens with vehicles for change that are more effective than violence, affecting both the democratic framework and the public support of the protest, and could therefore be counterproductive. Second, the use of violence involves an individual and collective price for those who use it. Nevertheless, citizens from various political-social groups clash violently with state agents. This choice becomes paradoxical when examining the violence of powerful social groups that are perfectly capable of influencing the state in different ways, and even more so, violent protests by groups that turn against the very security forces that protect them in dangerous areas. Two non-mutually exclusive ex-post explanations can elucidate this paradox. First, violence can be perceived as a strategy for political change. Despite the risk of individual harm and damage to the public image of the struggle, violence is not rejected by ideological justifications, but perceived as acceptable and necessary to mark the boundaries of right and wrong for the state, and raises public awareness of the struggle. Under these conditions, the benefit of violent actions outweighs the cost. According to the second possibility, violence has a profound meaning, beyond a utilitarian strategy, and indicates undermining the state's legitimacy. Violence by powerful right-wing groups is a growing phenomenon in the West, occurring in tandem with growing parliamentary and social influence. The case of Israeli West-Bank Settlers' Right-Wing Activists (henceforth: Settler-Activists) is particularly interesting in that regard. As opposed to disadvantaged groups and national minorities, whose ability to lead social change is limited, the Jewish Settlers in the West-bank – the group that leads the hardcore religious-nationalist political-right in Israel – is a powerful sociopolitical force that gains increasing influence in the Jewish-Israeli mainstream, but nevertheless seeks more power and perceives itself as constricted. The Israeli security forces with which Settler-Activists have been clashing ever since the 1967 occupation of the West-bank are in fact entrusted with protecting the Jewish presence in the land on which the settlers claim sovereignty. This article focuses on understanding ex-post explanations for violent clashes, from the activists' point of view. To do so, it examines the case of the Settler-Activist's struggle, representing a powerful mainstream-nationality minority group that faces Palestinian terrorism, but does not shy of violent actions against Palestinians and the state in protest against state policy – relying on its growing influence in the Jewish-Israeli mainstream. The main research question is how right-wing activists explain their part in violent clashes with state agents. Two secondary questions will be examined: (1) How do they evaluate violent clashes in cost-benefit terms? (2) How are perceptions of state legitimacy related to involvement in violence? The article offers the concept of perceived state legitimacy as a theoretical construct for evaluating the degree to which mainstream-nationality minorities undermine state legitimacy.