The existence of an apartheid-like country with a caste system based on race and religion is NOT a prerequisite for 'Jewish survival. If anything, it's proving to be a far greater liability.
The same number of Jews that live in Israel also live in peace outside it, in other countries. The US is home to the largest Jewish population outside of Israel, for example, and they are 'surviving' - in fact, thriving, having achieved prominence and success and peace with their neighbors in various communities in North America, in Europe, and around the world.
In contrast, Israel is proving to be a failure in terms of providing a safe haven for Jews. It's one of the least safe places for Jewish people now, and many Israelis are demonstrating that they feel this way by leaving Israel in record numbers to live elsewhere.
Maybe concentrating themselves in an area (with international assistance and facilitation) that was only ever going to be the most hostile place possible to exist isn't in fact, the greatest strategy if 'survival' is the goal.
As time as shown, the more effective strategy for peace, prosperity, success, and ultimately survival is to form strong bonds in the communities you exist in - wherever they might be - with your neighbors and form collaborative systems of participatory governments that grant equality to all rather than deeming one particular religion superior or dominant by decree.
The greatest irony (and practical rebuttal) of the fundamental tenant of Zionism - is that the most safe and prosperous places for Jews to survive is - interestingly - in the countries that Zionists in the 19th century claimed could never be 'civilized' into accepting Jews.
Perhaps this fanaticism of maintaining a national identity and cultural hegemony along ethnic and religious lines and forcefully ensure the demographic majority of 1 particular group is a flawed idea that's not doing so well these days.
In terms of 'surviving', it's not even clear that Israel could do so without being propped up by US support, which is not infallible. Is being reliant on a foreign power to enable your apartheid regime in an exceptionally hostile region really the best strategy for 'survival'? It didn't work out too well in the long run for Apartheid South Africa, or Republic of Rhodesia.
Historically, the 'losers' tend to be regimes and countries that try to build themselves up by holding someone else down and confine themselves to very narrow interests, often finding themselves dependent on a more powerful benefactor for their survival... A benefactor that can pull the rug out from under it at any time of its choosing if its interest in the project wanes.
