Dear ProCon.org readers, we need your help. The average cost for ProCon.org to educate 26 people with nonpartisan research on important issues is $1. The average taxi fare in America is about $10. We are asking everyone who visits ProCon.org to donate the cost of one taxi ride – at least $10 – to this important charity. Without your support, the programs at ProCon.org that serve millions of students, teachers, and others cannot exist. Our charitable work is funded entirely by your donations. Thank you and happy holidays!
Dear ProCon.org readers, we need your help. The average cost for ProCon.org to educate 26 people with nonpartisan research on important issues is $1. The average taxi fare in America is about $10. We are asking everyone who visits ProCon.org to donate the cost of one taxi ride – at least $10 – to this important charity. Without your support, the programs at ProCon.org that serve millions of students, teachers, and others cannot exist. Our charitable work is funded entirely by your donations.
This website exists to give people a real understanding of issues from both sides – not a biased echo chamber version of understanding issues. ProCon.org, a nonprofit public charity, provides – for free and without ads – nonpartisan facts, well researched pros and cons, and a platform for critical thinking on today’s most important issues. Please support this work with your tax-deductible donation in 2016. Time is running out, and the country needs ProCon.org more than ever. Thank you and happy holidays!
The Jerusalem Media and Communications Center's (JMCC) Apr. 2010 poll "Governance and US Policy" on www.jmcc.org included the following poll results:
"The results of the public opinion poll conducted by the Jerusalem Media and Communication Centre... showed a notable increase among Palestinians in the level of support for the establishment of a bi-national state in all of Palestine from 20.6% in June 2009, to 33.8% this month while the percentage of Palestinians who support the two-state solution declined from 55.2% last June to 43.9% in April 2010."
The Israeli Democracy Institute's Mar. 2010 poll "War and Peace Index" on www.peaceindex.org included the following poll results:
"To see whether there is a change in the Israeli Jewish public’s preferences regarding the future political solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we presented the interviewees with two possibilities: the establishment of a binational state in all of the western Land of Israel without dividing it, in which all of the rights of Jews and Palestinians would be equal, or alternatively a solution of two states for two peoples, that is, the establishment of an independent Palestinian state alongside the state of Israel on the basis of the 1967 borders, with the necessary security adjustments and the leaving of the large settlement blocs in place. The answers that were received again testify to the broad support for a two-state solution (66%). Fourteen percent support the solution of a binational state, and the rest have no clear position. Interestingly, the support for a binational-state solution is not concentrated on either side of the political map. Indeed, its rate among those defining themselves as right-wing (15%) is only slightly lower than among those defining themselves as left-wing (18%), while among centrists the rate stands at 9%."
Is a One-State Solution an Acceptable Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict?
Musa al-Gharbi, MA, Managing Editor at the Southwest Initiative for the Study of Middle East Conflicts (SISMEC), in a Jan. 6, 2015 Op-Ed titled "Israel and Palestinians Need a One-State Solution", available at america.aljazeera.com, wrote:
"Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has declared that Israel could 'never, ever countenance' a fully sovereign Palestinian state. The world should take him at his word. There never was a two-state solution, and there won’t be one in any foreseeable future. Instead, that so-called solution serves only to enable Israel's continued oppression, empowering cynics and hard-liners and perpetuating a never-ending cycle of conflict. The only viable resolution is to unite Israel and the territories into a single state...
Israel justifies its mistreatment of Palestinians by claiming that Arabs are not its responsibility; whether they live within Israel or the occupied territories, they all ultimately belong in the unsettled West Bank and should be provided for by their own government — an attitude emphasized by Israel's recent nationality law, which defines the country as an explicitly, perhaps exclusively Jewish state.
But in a unified Israel, Arabs would be the majority if afforded the same right to return that the Jewish diaspora has; there are 3 million registered Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. And demographic projections suggest Jews will soon be the minority even without considering the Palestinian diaspora. Accordingly, Palestinians would have much more leverage in a one-state scenario; their quest would then be for equitable power sharing and civil rights."
Avrum Burg, former Speaker for the Israeli Knesset, wrote in his Dec. 23, 2011 article "Now It's Your Turn" in Haaretz:
"The next diplomatic formula that will replace the 'two states for two peoples' will be a civilian formula. All the people between the Jordan and the sea have the same right to equality, justice and freedom. In other words, there is a very reasonable chance that there will be only one state between the Jordan and the sea - neither ours nor theirs but a mutual one. It is likely to be a country with nationalist, racist and religious discrimination and one that is patently not democratic, like the one that exists today. But it could be something entirely different. An entity with a common basis for at least three players: an ideological right that is prepared to examine its feasibility; a left, part of which is starting to free itself of the illusions of 'Jewish and democratic'; and a not inconsiderable part of the Palestinian intelligentsia.
The conceptual framework will be agreed upon - a democratic state that belongs to all of its citizens. The practicable substance could be fertile ground for arguments and creativity. This is an opportunity worth taking, despite our grand experience of missing every opportunity and accusing everyone else except ourselves."
Joseph Dana, MA, independent freelance journalist, said in his Feb. 13, 2011 interview "Is It Time to Move On to the One-State Solution?” on 972mag.com:
"The Palestine Papers have given ultimate confirmation that Israel is not interested in an equitable two-state solution with the Palestinians. The secret documents reveal beyond a shadow of a doubt that even the most generous offers of land and security by the Palestinians in a two-state paradigm were rejected by Israel. During these negotiations, and in fact during the last twenty years of serious discussion of a two-state solution, Israel has doubled and redoubled efforts to create facts on the ground in the West Bank and Gaza which render a two-state solution impossible to implement.
Quite simply, Israel has created the one state. This state gives 80% of its citizens (the Jewish population) full democratic and civil rights. 20% of the citizens (Palestinian citizens of Israel) experience institutionalized discrimination in virtually all sectors of civil and political life. The remaining population in the West Bank lives in an apartheid like system of separate and unequal rights under full military occupation by Israel. The population of Gaza is surrounded by walls and predator drones which constantly monitor their movements while preventing the growth of a sovereign state.
Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories form one state under complete Israeli control. Israeli negotiators with the cover of continued American aid and diplomatic assistance have taken every opportunity to stop an equitable two-state solution from coming into existence. Since we live in one state and the two-state solution is dead, why not pragmatically work towards bringing democracy to the residents of this unequal state?"
Michael Tarazi, PhD, Legal Adviser to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), wrote in an Oct. 5, 2004 New York Times article titled "Two Peoples, One State":
"Support for one state is hardly a radical idea; it is simply the recognition of the uncomfortable reality that Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories already function as a single state. They share the same aquifers, the same highway network, the same electricity grid and the same international borders... The one-state solution... neither destroys the Jewish character of the Holy Land nor negates the Jewish historical and religious attachment (although it would destroy the superior status of Jews in that state). Rather, it affirms that the Holy Land has an equal Christian and Muslim character. For those who believe in equality, this is a good thing."
Edward Said, PhD, former Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University, in a June 29, 2001 Reuters article titled "Edward Said Proposes Bi-national State," offered the following:
"...It [the bi-national state] is the only solution that seems to take into account the reality of the two peoples who basically claim the same land."
Saree Makdisi, PhD, Professor of English Literature at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), wrote in a Nov. 21, 2010 article "Post Arafat One State" on qumsiyeh.org:
"What is needed now is not more separation but a step toward the cooperative integration of Israelis and Palestinians in one common state... Israel and the occupied territories already constitute a single geopolitical entity, even if it's not labeled that way. Palestinians such as Azmi Bishara and Edward Said (when he was alive) have joined with Israelis including Ilan Pappé and Meron Benvenisti to call for a peace founded on that reality, rather than false compromises and ethnic separation. That state would join two peoples whom history has thrust together into one democratic, secular and self-governing community of truly equal citizens."
Muammar Qaddafi, former leader of Libya, in a Jan. 23, 2003 New York Times article titled "The Makeover," offered the following:
"It is no longer acceptable or reasonable to say that the Jews should be thrown into the sea. Even if you could do it, it's not acceptable. The solution is to join the two - Israelis and Palestinians - into one state, because once a state like this is established, then the interests of both sides are fulfilled. They can call it 'Israetine.'"
Sherri Muzher, JD, freelance journalist, in a Nov. 13, 2002 Media Monitors Network article titled "Israeli Settlements Are Unwittingly Leading to Bi-nationalism," wrote:
"This much is known: Palestinians aren’t leaving and Israelis aren’t leaving. They share the same land and the same natural resources. Their economies are linked. Israeli settlements have made physical separation impossible. The only solution is a democratic bi-national state where Palestinians and Israelis live as equals and are forced to make it work."
Rubi Rivlin, LLB, Speaker of the Israeli Knesset, wrote in his July 15, 2010 article "The Land Is Not Divisible" in Haaretz:
"There is a conflict in the Middle East between two entities, and they’re both right, each in their own way. This is our only home, and therefore all kinds of solutions can be found. One could establish a system in one state in which Judea and Samaria are jointly held. The Jews would vote for a Jewish parliament and the Palestinians for an Arab parliament, and we would create a system in which life is shared. But these are things that will take time. Anyone who thinks that there are shortcuts is talking nonsense. As long as Islamic fundamentalism thinks that Jews are forbidden to settle in the Holy Land, we have a problem. It will not be resolved by an agreement, even if we obtain a promise from all the Arab states that it will be fine.
So if people say to me: Decide one state or division of the Land of Israel, I say that division is the bigger danger."
Daniel J. Elazar, PhD, late Professor of Political Science at Temple University, in his 1991 book titled Two Peoples - One Land: Federal Solutions for Israel, the Palestinians, and Jordan, wrote:
"It is time to find a way to share the land without an exclusive reliance on partition... the only way to do so is through some form of federal solution which will secure for each party a polity of its own but in such a way that all three [Israel, Jordan and the Palestinians]must share in the governance of the land's common goods. It is this writer's deep and considered belief that the federal option is the only option for peace... within which all will find their place without foregoing their separate characters and cultures and their desire for independent development."
Rifat Odeh Kassis, President of the International Executive Council of Defence for Children, in a 2003 International Seminar on the Palestinian Struggle and Globalization presentation titled "A One Democratic State Might Be THE Solution," offered the following:
"A single state is one which is democratic and secular. Not Jewish. Not Islamic. It will stand for justice and equality of all races and religions. It will accept and tolerate each religious community and accord each of them their right to practice and propagate their religion."
Tony Judt, PhD, Erich Maria Remarque Professor of European Studies at New York University, in an Oct. 23, 2003 New York Review of Books article titled "Israel: The Alternative," wrote:
"What if there were no place in the world today for a 'Jewish state?' What if the binational solution were not just increasingly likely, but actually a desirable outcome? It is not such a very odd thought. Most of the readers of this essay live in pluralist states which have long since become multiethnic and multicultural... A binational state in the Middle East would require the emergence, among Jews and Arabs alike, of a new political class. The very idea is an unpromising mix of realism and utopia, hardly an auspicious place to begin. But the alternatives are far, far worse."
Ghada Karmi, PhD, Honorary Research Fellow and Assistant Lecturer at the Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies in the University of Exeter (England) in an Aug. 1999 Royal Institute of International Affairs article titled "Eretz Palestine: A Single State in Israel/Palestine," offered the following:
"No one denies that there will be massive obstacles in the way of implementing a one-state solution in Israel/Palestine. And it may well be that there will have to be a series of intermediary steps towards its realisation: a temporary separation of the two peoples, followed by a stage of bi-nationalism, and ultimately leading to what this author believes to be the most appropriate outcome, namely that of a secular democratic state which we may name ‘Eretz-Palestine’."
Mubarak Awad, Founder of Nonviolence International, stated in an Oct.-Dec., 2000 Peace Magazine interview titled "Nonviolence in the Middle East: A Talk with Mubarak Awad":
"For the future of that area we should not have a Palestinian state. I could call the whole of Israel 'Palestine' and an Israeli could call the whole of Israel and Palestine 'Israel,' and we could live together, accepting each other. This is my dream. That will come after 50 or 60 years. Israel has to accept that it is part of the Middle East, and divorce itself from being European. They have to be accepted by the Arabs and Palestinians as a minority in the Middle East, much as the Christians are a minority in the Middle East. It is nice to be European but they are not... The old city of Jerusalem should not be ruled either by Palestinians or Israelis. We should have a committee of Christians, Muslims, and Jews, with rotating leadership to take care of religious matters... For politicians to interfere inside the city of Jerusalem doesn’t work. I am not saying that it should be a capital of Israel or a capital of Palestine. But the old city of Jerusalem, I am against having it under international rule because the Palestinians don’t trust the UN and the Israelis never did trust the UN. So it would be good cooperation if we could have a committee of religious groups, just to be responsible for the religious aspect of it. Sewage, water, and security matters would be handled by Palestinians and Israelis."
Marian Kromkowski, JD, attorney and peace activist, stated in an Apr. 12-13, 2003 speech transcript titled "The One State Versus Two State Solution: Why the Latter Is No Solution at All," available at the New England Committee to Defend Palestine (NECDP) website:
"One, democratic, secular Palestine encompassing all the historic territory of Palestine is consistent with a just and lasting solution. It retrieves the true history of Palestine-a history of peaceful coexistence between people of diverse ethnicities and religions."
The Association for One Democratic State in Palestine/Israel (ODSPI), in an Apr. 15, 2003 ODSPI website section titled "Bylaws of the Association - Preamble," offered the following:
"The creation of one democratic state is the only viable, long-term solution to the conflict. The establishment of a unitary State in Palestine/Israel would proceed by merging two legal entities, the State of Israel and the Palestinian Autonomous Authority, into one constitutional and democratic order which would secure equal rights and duties to all of its citizens without any discrimination based on religion, gender, nationality, ethnicity or language. This state may later become the model for and the nucleus of a larger political entity, including other countries in the Middle-East and North Africa."
The Esco Foundation for Palestine, in a 1947 book titled Palestine: A Study of Jewish, Arab, and British Policies, presented the following:
"In order to dispose, once and for all, of the exclusive claims of Jews and Arabs to Palestine, we regard it as essential that a clear statement of the following principles should be made: (I) That Jew shall not dominate Arab and Arab shall not dominate Jew in Palestine. (II) That Palestine shall be neither a Jewish state nor an Arab state. (III) That the form of government ultimately to be established, shall, under international guarantees, fully protect and preserve the interests in the Holy Land of Christendom and of the Moslem and Jewish faiths. Thus Palestine must ultimately become a state which guards the rights and interests of Moslems, Jews and Christians alike and accords to the inhabitants, as a whole, the fullest measure of self government consistent with the three paramount principles set forth above... We have reached the conclusion that the hostility between Jews and Arabs and, in particular, the determination of each to achieve domination, if necessary by violence, make it almost certain that, now and for some time to come, any attempt to establish either an independent Palestinian state or independent Palestinian states would result in civil strife such as might threaten the peace of the world. We therefore recommend that, until this hostility disappears, the Government of Palestine be continued as at present under mandate pending the execution of a trusteeship agreement under the United Nations."
Ahmad Yusuf, former Executive Director of the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR), in a Dec. 1998 Middle East Quarterly article titled "No, But a Useful Step Toward Bi-Nationalism," wrote:
"We must address the real issues. A bi-national state solution, or Holy Land Federation, is foremost among these possible solutions. This calls for the two peoples of Palestine and Israel to live in one federal entity, with two autonomous regions that are subject to a common sovereignty only in areas of military defense and monetary policy... Such a plan can be achieved only when the proponents of Zionism acquiesce to the reality that the Zionist creation of Israel is a temporary exercise and that the Palestinian people will never agree to be dominated by or co-exist with a foreign and racist entity. This would end the Zionist project by transforming its sense of self-identity and returning it to a more traditional understanding."
The Green Party of the United States, stated in its 2004 platform section titled "A Real Road to Peace in the Middle East," presented on www.gp.org:
"We would consider support for a U.S. foreign policy that promotes serious reconsideration of the creation of one secular, democratic state for Palestinians and Israelis on the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan as the national home of both peoples, with Jerusalem as its capital. We encourage a new U.S. diplomatic initiative to begin the long process of negotiation, laying the groundwork for such a single-state constitution."
Riyad al-Maliki, PhD, Foreign Affairs Minister at the Palestinian National Authority, said in his Mar. 29, 2011 presentation at The Peres Center for Peace:
"A binational state is a disaster... The position of the Palestinian Authority is to have a two state solution... and we have been fighting to have an independent Palestinian state next to the State of Israel. We want to live as an independent, sovereign state of Palestine next to the State of Israel. And we don't want to be part of a state with Israel. A binational state is a disaster to Israel and it is a disaster to us."
Gershom Gorenberg, PhD, author and historian, wrote in his Nov. 9, 2011 article "How to Save Israel" on slate.com:
"[A] one-state arrangement would solve little and make many things worse. Imagine that tomorrow Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip were reconstituted as the Eastern Mediterranean Republic, and elections were held. With the current population, the parliament would be split almost evenly between Jews and Palestinians. One of the first issues that the parliament and judiciary would face is the settlements that Israel built on privately owned Palestinian property, whether it was requisitioned, stolen, or declared state land over Palestinian objections. Palestinian claimants would demand return of their property. The problem of evacuating settlers wouldn’t vanish. Rather, it would divide the new state on communal lines.
Likewise for refugees. Palestinian legislators would demand that Israel's Law of Return be extended to cover Palestinians returning to their homeland. Jewish politicians would oppose the move, which would reduce their community to a threatened minority. Palestinians would demand the return of property lost in 1948 and perhaps the rebuilding of destroyed villages. Except for the drawing of borders, virtually every question that bedevils Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations would become a domestic problem, setting the new political entity aflame.
Issues not at the center of today's diplomacy would also set the two communities at odds. Israel has a post-industrial Western economy; The West Bank and Gaza are underdeveloped. Financing development in majority-Palestinian areas and bringing Palestinians into Israel's social-welfare network would require Jews to pay higher taxes or receive fewer services. But the engine of the Israeli economy is high-tech, an entirely portable industry. Both individuals and companies would leave, crippling the new shared economy. Meanwhile, two nationalities who have desperately sought a political frame for cultural and social independence would wrestle over control of language, art, street names, and schools. Psychologically, it would be a country with two resentful minorities and no majority.
Even in the best case, the outcome would be the continued existence of separate Jewish and Palestinian political parties. And even the more liberal-leaning parties of each community would be hard-pressed to bridge the divide to form stable coalitions. Israel would become a second Belgium, perpetually incapable of forming a stable government. In the more likely case, the political tensions would ignite as violence. The transition to a single state would mark a new stage in the conflict...
It would be a nightmare: another of the places marked on the globe as a country, in which two or more communities do battle while the most educated or well-connected members of each look for refuge elsewhere."
Jeffrey Goldberg, writer at The Atlantic, wrote in his Dec. 8, 2011 article "Peter Beinart Is Right – Or, a One-State Solution Is Inevitable if Settlements Continue” in The Atlantic:
"Israel has a choice -- find a way to reverse the settlement process and bring about the conditions necessary to see the birth of a Palestinian state (I'm for unilateral closure of settlements but the military occupation's end will have to be negotiated with the Palestinians) or simply grant the Palestinians on the West Bank the right to vote in Israeli elections. Gaza is an entirely separate problem, but one not solvable so long as Hamas is in charge, but even without Gaza's Arabs, Israel would cease to be a Jewish state if West Bank Arabs became citizens.
It will be extremely difficult for any number of reasons for Israel to leave the West Bank, but it will be impossible for Israel to survive over the long-term if it remains an occupier of a group of people who don't want to be occupied. I understand the security consequences of an Israeli departure from most of the West Bank, but I also understand that there is ultimately no choice. I don't believe a one-state solution is any sort of solution at all; Israel/Palestine will devolve quickly into civil war.”
Dahlia Scheindlin, PhD, MTS, Op-Ed Editor at +972 Magazine, said in her Feb. 13, 2011 interview "Is It Time to Move On to the One-State Solution?” on 972mag.com:
"Although the one-state approach proposes a united entity between the Jordan and the sea, in fact it represents King Solomon’s original proposal to cut the baby in half. In reality, one state means that Israelis and Palestinians each receive a mutilated and unsustainable version of its national dream. The Palestinians will never get the national self-determination they seek in a Jewish-dominated single state. Jews will achieve neither the democracy and inner harmony they seek (or ought to), nor legitimacy from the world, as long as they obstruct Palestinian rights to national self-expression in their single state – even before Jews become a minority.
Finally, this conflict is tragically likely to ignite again over ‘some damn foolish thing in the settlements’ (with apologies to Bismark). A one-state solution not only fails to prevent settlements from ripping into Palestinian land and courting violence, it legitimizes expansion – since there is no border. Sadly, we all need one."
Hussein Ibish, PhD, Senior Fellow at the American Task Force on Palestine, said in his Nov. 3, 2009 interview "Hussein Ibish on the Fantasy World of One-Staters” in The Atlantic:
"There are two fundamental flaws with pro-Palestinian strategic thinking that focuses on the idea of abandoning two states and going for a single state. The first is the question of feasibility, and it's hard to argue with that. Obviously anyone who is familiar with this sees the difficulty, and I would be the first to say that success is not assured by any means. Even a two-state agreement looks, at the moment, like something of a long shot. The difference between the two-state solution and everything else is that yes, it's a long shot, but it would work. And if we could conceivably get it, if we did get it, it would solve the conflict.
The fundamental argument that the one-staters seem to be making, which is that we can't possibly get Israel to end the occupation and relinquish their control of the 22 percent of Palestine (the West Bank and Gaza) but we will inevitably succeed in getting them to relinquish one hundred percent of the territory under their control. This is a problem of logic. The second thing is that once you've realized this, obviously what you've done is set yourself the task of convincing Jewish Israelis to voluntarily do this. The idea of coercing the Israelis into this through military force is absurd, and it could only really be done through voluntary persuasion. What the one-staters argue, actually, is that they don't have to do that. What they're going to do, they say, is bring the Israelis to their knees.”
Zehava Galon, PhD, Israeli Knesset Member, said in her Feb. 13, 2011 interview "Is It Time to Move On to the One-State Solution?” on 972mag.com:
"The one-state solution is a dangerous and mistaken illusion.
I believe that the State of Israel is the self determination of the Jewish Nation, a state for all citizens, and a state which grants communal rights to National minorities within it. Just as I defend Israel’s right to exist, despite my criticism, I also struggle for the establishment of a Palestinian state that will put into practice Palestinians’ right to Statehood.
The demand to release Palestinians from the oppression of the Occupation is not only a human rights demand. Rather, it is a demand for the end of the conflict, for a division of land based on an agreement, in the spirit of the Arab League and Geneva Initiatives. The suggestion to establish one state, both when it comes from the radical left or from the right, will not only deter from reaching peace but will establish a new conflict over control over the one state.
Unlike them, I want to end the occupation, but not to end the state of Israel. I want to change the state I’m living it, but I don’t want to give up our independence. I believe that the Palestinians wouldn’t want to give up the hope for their own nation-state as well. According to a recent poll conducted by the Hebrew University, this understanding is shared by a majority in both societies.”
Benny Morris, PhD, Professor of History at Ben-Gurion University, stated in a Mar. 25, 2004 Atlantic Monthly interview titled "The Lonely Historian":
"I don't think the Palestinians really want to agree to a two-state solution. They want a one-state solution, which means Israel's destruction and the turning of all of Palestine into one Arab majority state."
Shlomo Ben-Ami, PhD, former Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs, in an Apr. 27, 2004 Open Democracy editorial titled "Sharon's Gaza Disengagement: Roadmap to a Palestinian State?," wrote:
"I am afraid that the recent debate that seeks salvation for the Palestinians through a bi-national, one-state solution is based on totally far-fetched and unrealistic premises. Israeli and Palestinian nationalism are both as proud and as exclusive as any nationaism can be. Neither will reliquish its dream of separate statehood."
Shimon Peres, President of Israel, in a May 1998 La Monde Diplomatique commentary titled "Why Israel Needs a Palestinian State," wrote:
"Without two separate states, a binational state will come into being, to the great frustration of the two peoples. A binational tragedy would ensue which, in the course of time, would force Israel to stay armed against the Palestinians, whose bitterness could lead once more to terrorism."
Lara Friedman, MA, Director of Policy and Government Relations at Americans for Peace Now, said in her Feb. 13, 2011 interview "Is It Time to Move On to the One-State Solution?” on 972mag.com:
"The 'one-state solution' is a fantasy shared by some anti-Zionists/post-Zionists and some Zionist hardliners. Fantasy, because no Israeli government will dissolve the State of Israel in favor of a bi-national state, and Israel will never be able to justify annexing the West Bank to create 'Greater Israel.' And importantly, 'one-state' is not the dream of either the Israeli or the Palestinian public at large.
The two-state solution is still possible and is the only alternative to a permanent state of conflict. Rather than wasting time on fantasy, energy should focus on achieving the two-state solution before it is too late."
Alan Dershowitz, LLB, Harvard Law Professor, stated in an Oct. 20, 2004 Jerusalem Post interview titled "Q & A with Alan Dershowitz":
"The one-state solution proposal now being made by Palestinian lawyers and some anti-Israel academics is nothing more than a ploy designed to destroy the Jewish state and to substitute another Islamic Arab state."
Uri Avnery, Israeli writer and peace activist, in a July 15, 2003 Counter Punch essay titled "The Bi-national State: The Wolf Shall Dwell with the Lamb," wrote:
"There is no chance at all that the present, post-holocaust, Israeli generation, or its successor, will accept this [bi-national] solution, which conflicts absolutely with the myth and the ethos of Israel. The aim of the founders of the State of Israel was that the Jews - or a part of them - could at last take their destiny into their own hands. A bi-national state means the abandonment of this aim, and, in practice, the dismantling of Israel itself. The Jews would return to the traumatic experience of a people without a state throughout the world, with all that that implies. And not as a result of a crushing military defeat, but as a free choice. Not very likely."
Yossi Klein Halevi, MA, Senior Fellow of the Shalem Center in Jerusalem, in an Oct. 23, 2003 article titled "Only the Naive or the Malicious Would Urge a Binational Israel," available at jewishworldreview.com, offered the following:
"Think Yugoslavia, only worse. That's what proponents of a binational, Arab-Jewish state are really offering in their utopian vision of the Middle East. The notion that Palestinians and Jews, who can't even negotiate a two-state solution, could coexist in one happy state is so ludicrous that only the naive or the malicious would fall for it. But despite this, the idea — which periodically surfaced in the 20th century — is again growing fashionable... The refusal by Palestinian leaders to accept Israel in any borders is the real reason for the ongoing conflict. Western proponents of a one-state solution only justify and reinforce Arab intransigence and territorial greed. Those advocates of Israel's demise should ask themselves why Jewish nationhood, alone among all forms of nationhood, is so problematic and distasteful. Is Israeli democracy, however flawed, a greater moral blight to humanity than the more perfect autocracies that surround it? Not that a binational state isn't a lovely dream. But if we're already dreaming, then let's imagine a world without states. I would be happy to live in such a world. And that's about as realistic a hope as imagining that Arafat will create a binational democratic state in Palestine."
Thomas L. Friedman, MA, Foreign Affairs columnist for the New York Times, stated in a Sep. 25, 2003 PBS News Hour interview with Margret Warner:
"It [a one-state solution] would be a nightmare because if you take all the West Bank, all of Gaza and all of Israel together it's about 55 percent Jewish, 45 percent Palestinian. In ten years, given the different growth rates, it's going to be about 51 percent Palestinian, 49 percent Jewish... So this is a real problem for Israel."
Carlo Strenger, PhD, Chair of the Clinical Graduate Program at the Department of Psychology of Tel Aviv University, wrote in his Dec. 28, 2011 article "2011: The Year the Two State Solution Died" in Haaretz:
"The one state solution, at this point, is an empty concept, so is that of an Israeli-Palestinian confederation. For neither case can I imagine how the parliament of the greater Israel-Palestine would function, or how equality of all citizens with respect to security could be achieved: I agree with Sari Nousseibeh that Jewish history from the Pogroms through the Holocaust, from the 1948 war to that of 1973, is too traumatic for Israelis to relinquish control of security for a long time to come."
Gadi Taub, PhD, Professor of Communications and Public Policy at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said in his Jan. 27, 2011 interview "Gadi Taub on Herzl, Settlements, and the Israeli Left” at justjournalism.com:
"A look at Gaza, where the differences between Hamas and Fatah were settled by the use of arms, should help us all wake up from imaginary schemes of peaceful bi-nationalism. I don't see how Gaza would have turned into a liberal democracy if only there was a Jewish faction added to the mix. What the one-statists are promoting is going to be a chronic Lebanon style civil war. And the odd thing is, how little British intellectuals have drifted from old colonial habits of mind. The natives - we Jews and Arabs - aspire to national self-determination. But the good ol' Brits, never tired of carrying the White Man's Burden, know that the natives are too barbaric to understand what the right form of self-determination should be for them. So until they grow up, we, Western intellectuals, will serve as their political parents, and impose on them the state we know they should want. Because it is Western and enlightened, of course.”