As the situation gets visibly worse on the ground, voices questioning the “two state solution” as the ultimate goal are getting louder. From a broad spectrum of ideological backgrounds, more and more people are joining those who have always advocated a democratic one-state solution.

The various proponents of a one-state solution have radically differing views over the actual vision and implementation of the one state—will the state be bi-national? Federal? What broadly unites them is that they seek to (a) eradicate the Green Line, the false barrier imposed by the 1967 occupation and (b) that domestic and immigration law would make no distinction between Jew and Palestinian, whether Muslim, Jewish, or Christian. This school of thought incorporates a broad spectrum of opinions, but is totally distinct from the other kind of one-state view, one which demands that the whole of British Mandate Palestine belong to one particular group, whether Jewish, Islamic, or Arab.

Even those for whom the two-state solution is still the ideal are admitting the power of the one-state argument. “Rather than create the outlines of a two-state solution, this wall will kill that idea for Palestinians, and drive them, over time, to demand instead a one-state solution—where they and the Jews would have equal rights in one state,” writes the pro-Israeli Thomas Friedman in the New York Times of September 14, 2003. “If American Jews think it’s hard to defend Israel today on college campuses, imagine what it will be like when their kids have to argue against the principle of one man, one vote.”

It is understandable that many seeking a just solution are wary of the concept of one state, knowing full well that it is one state, Eretz Israel, that the settlers and the right wing want; one Jewish Israel from the Jordan to the sea. But take a look at the map and you realize that even a whole Gaza Strip and a West Bank with half of Jerusalem is no “viable” state. One state seems to be the only logical alternative, but, naturally, along radically different lines from the settlers’ dreams.

It is my view that the peace process has in fact put off the real reconciliation that must occur if the hundred-year war between Zionism and the Palestinian people is to end. Oslo set the stage for separation, but real peace can come only with a binational Israeli-Palestinian state.

Edward Said - New York Times, 10th January 1999, ‘The One-State Solution’

Paradigm shift

Some say that to seek justice is utopian. But on the contrary, the pragmatist should also recognize that a two-state accord fudging central issues is a waste of time: Persuading Palestinian armed resistance to end when a “shared” Jerusalem still includes 200,000 Israeli settlers living in East Jerusalem? An Israel allowing Palestinians to return to their homes and lands or to be fully compensated? An Israeli government permitting a Palestinian state to control its own economy by opening a free border with Jordan and Egypt? Not a realistic possibility!

There are alternatives to the one state/two-state paradigm—a slide towards apartheid for example, or a drift towards ever-escalating resistance and violence’

Ahmad Samih Khalidi, The Guardian, “A One-State Solution: A Unitary Arab-Jewish Homeland Could Bring Lasting Peace to the Middle East”

Despite differing views as to what the concept of one state would actually mean, the basic idea of a one-state solution is undoubtedly gaining support. From the New York Review of Books (Tony Judt, October 23, 2003) to the Guardian (Ahmad Samah Khalidi, September 29, 2003), mainstream press are giving space to discussion. As land confiscation and settlement building continues, the current framework of a two-state solution is unworkable even in the short term, let alone sustainable in the long term. Those who first dismissed the idea of one state should think again.

One democratic state in which Jews, Palestinians, and any number of minority groups are allowed to live would address the issues raised above and more. If politicians make some sort of agreement to impose on Palestinians and Israelis in the short term (an unlikely prospect at the moment), the Palestinian state that would be created is unlikely to be seen as any more than a “Bantustan” state by the majority of Palestinians or a just and viable state by standards of international law. And Israel, after such an agreement, would still be defined as a Jewish state, which excludes its large Palestinian minority.

What happens in the next half century when this currently 20 percent minority becomes the majority? A one-state solution may seem utopian, but in the long term future, the conditions are already there for the two-state solution to collapse into greater conflict than has so far been seen. Solving the situation in Palestine is far harder than simply getting two leaders to sign and implement the conditions for a two-state solution.