One-state solution 1

One-state solution
Part of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict
and Arab–Israeli conflict series

Israeli–Palestinian
Peace Process

Israel

West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights a

Negotiating Parties

Israel Palestinians

History

Camp David Accords · Madrid Conference

Oslo Accords / Oslo II · Hebron Protocol
Wye River / Sharm el-Sheikh Memoranda
2000 Camp David Summit · Taba Summit
Road Map · Annapolis Conference

Primary Negotiation Concerns

Final borders  · Israeli settlements

· Refugees (Jewish, Palestinian Arab)  · Security concerns
Status of Jerusalem  · Water

Secondary Negotiation Concerns

Antisemitic incitements
Israeli West Bank barrier · Jewish state
Palestinian political violence
Places of worship

Palestine  Current Leaders  Israel

Mahmoud Abbas Shimon Peres

Salam Fayyad Benjamin Netanyahu

International Brokers

Diplomatic Quartet (United Nations, United States, European Union, Russia

Arab League (Egypt, Jordan)  · United Kingdom  · France

Other Proposals
One-state solution 2

One-state solution (Isratine) · Two-state solutions (Arab Peace Initiative · Geneva Accord · Elon Peace Plan · Lieberman Plan)  ·
Three-state solution Israeli unilateral plans: Disengagement  · Realignment
Peace-orientated projects: Peace Valley  · Middle East economic integration

Major projects, groups and NGOs

Peace-oriented projects · Peace Valley  · Alliance for Middle East Peace · Aix Group · Peres Center for Peace

a The Golan Heights are not part of the Israeli-Palestinian process.

The one-state solution and the similar binational solution, are proposed approaches to resolving the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict.[1] It is sometimes referred to as Palisra (Hebrew: ‫ארשילפ‬‎, Palisra; Arabic: ‫ارسلف‬‎,
Falisra)[2] or Isratin (Hebrew: ‫ןיִטָרְׂשִי‬‎, Yisrātīn; Arabic: ‫نيطارسإ‬‎, Isrātīn).[3] Proponents of a binational solution to
the conflict advocate either a single state in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip, or a single state in Israel and the
West Bank,[4] [1] with citizenship and equal rights in the combined entity for all inhabitants of all three territories,
without regard to ethnicity or religion.[1] While some advocate this solution for ideological reasons,[1] others feel
simply that, due to the reality on the ground, it is the de facto situation. [5] [6]
Though increasingly debated in academic circles, this approach has remained outside the range of official efforts to
resolve the conflict as well as mainstream analysis, where it is eclipsed by the two-state solution. The two-state
solution was most recently agreed upon in principle by the government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority at the
November 2007 Annapolis Conference and remains the conceptual basis for negotiations proposed by the
administration of U.S. President Barack Obama in late 2010. Interest in a one-state solution is growing, however, as
the two-state approach fails to accomplish a final agreement.[6] Support among Palestinians for a one-state solution is
increasing, especially because the continuing growth of Israeli Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem and the West
Bank suggest that a Palestinian state can be created only in territorial enclaves and could not be truly sovereign or
economically viable.[6]

Overview
The “one-state solution” refers to a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through the creation of a unitary,
federal or confederate Israeli-Palestinian state encompassing all of the present territory of Israel, the West Bank
including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip.
Depending on various points of view, a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is presented as a
nightmare situation in which Israel would ostensibly lose its character as a Jewish state and the Palestinians would
fail to achieve their national independence within a two-state solution[6] or, alternatively, as the best, most just, and
only way to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This scenario is being discussed not as an intentional political
solution – desired or undesired – but as the probable, inevitable outcome of the continuous growth of the Jewish
settlements in the West Bank and the apparently irrevocable entrenchment of Israel's presence in the Israeli-occupied
territories.[6]
Although the terms “one-state solution” and “bi-national solution” are often used synonymously, they do not
necessarily mean the same thing. In debates about a one-state solution in Israel-Palestine, bi-nationalism refers to a
political system in which the two groups, Jews and Palestinians, would retain their legal and political character as
separate nations or nationalities. In most bi-national arguments for a one-state solution, such an arrangement is
deemed necessary both to ensure the protection of minorities (whichever group that is) and to reassure both groups
that their collective interests would be protected. Counter-arguments are that bi-nationalism would entrench the two
identities politically in ways that would foster their continuing rivalry and social divides; these arguments favour a
unitary democratic state, or one-person-one-vote arrangement.
One-state solution 3

Popular support
Support among Israeli Jews, and Jews generally, for a one-state solution is very low.[6] Israelis see a one-state
solution as a demographic threat that would overturn the prevailing Jewish majority within Israel. [7] [8]
A one-state solution is generally endorsed by Israeli Arabs.[9] Many are becoming nervous that a two-state solution
would result in official pressures for them to move into a Palestinian state in the West Bank and/or Gaza Strip and so
lose their homes and access to their communities, businesses and cities inside Israel.[9] Some Israeli government
spokespeople have also proposed that Palestinian-majority areas of Israel, such as the area around Umm el-Fahm, be
annexed to the new Palestinian state.[9] As this measure would cut these areas off permanently from the rest of
Israel's territory, including the coastal cities and other Palestinian towns and villages, Palestinians view this with
alarm.[9] Palestinian citizens of Israel would therefore greatly prefer a one-state solution because this would allow
them to sustain their Israeli citizenship while restoring ties with Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza from whom
they have been separated for over 60 years. [9] The Haifa Declaration is similar, though written by individuals
advocating the Two state solution:
"...In this Declaration, we also set forth our own reading of our history, as well as our conception of our
citizenship and our relationship with the other parts of the Palestinian people, with the Arab nation, and with
the State of Israel. We further present our vision for achieving a dignified life in our homeland and building a
democratic society founded upon justice, freedom, equality, and mutual respect between the Palestinian Arabs
and Jews in Israel. We also put forward our conception of the preconditions for an historic reconciliation
between the Palestinian people and the Israeli Jewish people, and of the future to which we aspire as regards
the relationship between the two peoples..."-from the Haifa Declaration[10]
A multi-option poll by Near East Consulting (NEC) in November 2007 found the bi-national state to be less popular
than either "two states for two people" or "a Palestinian state on all historic Palestine" with only 13.4% of
respondents supporting a binational solution.[11] However, in February 2007, NEC found that around 70% of
Palestinian respondents backed the idea when given a straight choice of either supporting or opposing "a one-state
solution in historic Palestine where Muslims, Christians and Jews have equal rights and responsibilities".[12] In
March 2010, a survey by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research and the Harry S. Truman Research
Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem found that Palestinian support had
risen to 29 percent.[13] In April 2010, a poll by the Jerusalem Media and Communication Centre also found that
Palestinian support for a "bi-national" solution had jumped from 20.6 percent in June 2009 to 33.8 percent.[14] If this
support for a bi-national state is combined with the finding that 9.8 percent of Palestinian respondents favour a
"Palestinian state" in "all of historic Palestine", this poll suggested about equal Palestinian support for a two-state
and one-state solution in mid-2010.[13] [14] In November 2009, Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat proposed the
adoption of the one-state solution if Israel didn't halt settlement construction:
"[it is time to] (sic) refocus their attention on the one-state solution where Muslims, Christians and Jews
can live as equals...It is very serious. This is the moment of truth for us."[15]
Some Israeli Jews and Palestinians who oppose a one-state solution have nevertheless come to believe that it may
come to pass.[6] Israeli Prime Minister Olmert argued, in a 2007 interview with the Israeli daily Ha'aretz, that
without a two-state agreement Israel would face "a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights" in which
case "Israel [would be] finished".[16] This echoes comments made in 2004 by Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed
Qurei, who said that if Israel failed to conclude an agreement with the Palestinians, that the Palestinians would
pursue a single, bi-national state.[17]
Today, the prominent proponents for the one-state solution include Muammar al-Gaddafi of Libya (see also Saif
Islam Qaddafi Isratin proposal),[3] [1] Palestinian author Ali Abunimah,[18] Palestinian-American producer Jamal
Dajani, Palestinian lawyer Michael Tarazi,[19] Jeff Halper,[20] Israeli writer Dan Gavron,[21] Palestinian-American
law professor George Bisharat,[22] and American-Lebanese academic Saree Makdisi.[23] They cite the expansion of
the Israeli Settler movement, especially in the West Bank, as a compelling rationale for bi-nationalism and the
One-state solution 4

increased unfeasibility of the two-state alternative:

"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."-Michael Tarazi[24]
They advocate a secular and democratic state while still maintaining a Jewish presence and culture in the region.[7]
[25]
They concede that this alternative will erode the dream of Jewish supremacy in terms of governance in the long
run.[10]

Historical background
The area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River was controlled by various national groups throughout
history. A number of groups, including the Canaanites, the Israelites, the Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Jews,
Romans, Byzantines, Umayyads, Abbasids, Turks, Crusaders, Mamluks, Ottomans, the British and now Israelis have
controlled the region at one time or another.[26] From 1516 until the conclusion of World War I, the region was
controlled by the Ottoman Empire.[27]
From 1915 to 1916, the British High Commissioner in Egypt, Sir Henry McMahon, corresponded by letters with
Sayyid Hussein bin Ali, the father of Pan Arabism. These letters, were later known as the Hussein-McMahon
Correspondence. McMahon promised Hussein and his Arab followers the territory of the Ottoman Empire in
exchange for assistance in driving out the Ottoman Turks. Hussein interpreted these letters as promising the region
of Palestine to the Arabs. McMahon and the Churchill White Paper maintained that Palestine had been excluded
from the territorial promises,[28] but minutes of a Cabinet Eastern Committee meeting held on 5 December 1918
confirmed that Palestine had been part of the area that had been pledged to Hussein in 1915.[29]
In 1916, Britain and France signed the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which divided the colonies of the Ottoman Empire
between them. Under this agreement, the region of Palestine would be controlled by Britain.[30] In a 1917, letter
from Arthur James Balfour to Lord Rothschild, known as the Balfour Declaration of 1917, the British government
promised “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people”, but at the same time required
“that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in
Palestine”.[31]
In 1922, the League of Nations granted Britain a mandate for Palestine. Like all League of Nations Mandates, this
mandate derived from article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant, which called for the self-determination of
former Ottoman Empire colonies after a transitory period administered by a world power.[32] The Palestine Mandate
recognized the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and required that the mandatory government “facilitate Jewish
immigration” while at the same time “ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not
prejudiced”.[33]
Disagreements over Jewish immigration as well as incitement by Haj Amin Al-Husseini led to an outbreak of
Arab-Jewish violence in the Palestine Riots of 1920. Violence erupted again the following year during the Jaffa
Riots. In response to these riots, Britain established the Haycraft Commission of Inquiry. Violence erupted again in
the form of the 1929 Palestine riots, the 1929 Hebron massacre, and the 1929 Safed massacre. After the violence, the
British led another commission of inquiry under Sir Walter Shaw. The report of the Shaw Commission, known as the
Shaw Report or Command Paper No 3530, attributed the violence to “the twofold fear of the Arabs that, by Jewish
immigration and land purchase, they might be deprived of their livelihood and, in time, pass under the political
domination of the Jews”.[34]
One-state solution 5

Violence erupted again during the 1936-1939 Arab revolt in Palestine.

The British established the Peel Commission of 1936-1937 in order to
put an end to the violence. The Peel Commission concluded that only
partition could put an end to the violence, and proposed the Peel
Partition Plan. While the Jewish community accepted the concept of
partition, not all members endorsed the implementation proposed by
How UN members voted on Palestine's
the Peel Commission. The Arab community entirely rejected the Peel
partition  In favour  Switched to In
Partition Plan, which included population transfers, primarily of Arabs. favor  Abstained  Against  Absent
The partition plan was abandoned, and in 1939 Britain issued its White
Paper of 1939 clarifying its “unequivocal” position that “it is not part of [Britain's] policy that Palestine should
become a Jewish State” and that “The independent State [of Palestine] should be one in which Arabs and Jews share
government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded.”

The White Paper of 1939 sought to accommodate Arab demands regarding Jewish immigration by placing a quota of
10,000 Jewish immigrants per year over a five-year period from 1939 to 1944. The White Paper of 1939 also
required Arab consent for further Jewish immigration. The White Paper was seen by the Jewish community as a
revocation of the Balfour Declaration of 1917, and due to Jewish persecution in the Holocaust, Jews continued to
immigrate illegally in what has become known as Aliyah Bet.[35]
Continued violence and the heavy cost of World War II prompted Britain to turn the issue of Palestine to the United
Nations in 1947. In its debates, the UN divided its member States into two subcommittees: one to address options for
partition and a second to address all other options. The Second Subcommittee, which included all the Arab and
Muslim States members, issued a long report arguing that partition was illegal according to the terms of the Mandate
and proposing a unitary democratic state that would protect rights of all citizens equally.[36] The General Assembly
instead voted for partition and in UN General Assembly Resolution 181 recommended that the Mandate territory of
Palestine be partitioned into a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jewish community accepted the 1947 partition
plan, and declared independence as the State of Israel in 1948. The Arab community rejected the partition plan, and
army units from five Arab countries – Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Egypt – contributed to a united Arab
army that attempted to invade the territory, resulting in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The war, known to Israelis as the
Independence War of 1948 and to Palestinians as Al-Nakba (meaning “the catastrophe”), resulted in Israel’s
establishment as well as leading 700,00 Palestinians from Israeli territory (although some claim they were expelled
they simply left in the hope of returning with Arab's army another motivation of leaving was from the orders of Arab
leaders outside Israel) from the territory which became Israel.
By 1948, in the wake of the Holocaust, Jewish support for partition and a Jewish state had become overwhelming.
Nevertheless, some Jewish voices still argued for unification. The International Jewish Labor Bund was against the
UN vote on the partition of Palestine and reaffirmed its support for a single binational state that would guarantee
equal national rights for Jews and Arabs and would be under the control of superpowers and the UN. The 1948 New
York Second world conference of the International Jewish Labor Bund condemned the proclamation of the Jewish
state, because the decision exposed the Jews in Palestine to a danger. The conference was in favour of a binational
state built on the base of national equality and democratic federalism.[37]
One-state solution 6

Palestinian support for the binational state

In 1969 the Fatah movement accepted as a fait accompli the presence in Palestine of a large number of Jews. In
January 1969 Fatah declared that it was not fighting against Jews, but against Israel as a racist and theocratic entity.
The fifth national council of the Palestine Liberation Organisation in February 1969 passed a resolution confirming
that the PLO’s objective was “to establish a free and democratic society in Palestine for all Palestinians whether they
are Muslims, Christians or Jews”. The PLO was not successful in building support for the binational solution within
Israeli society, however, which lay the groundwork for an eventual re-scoping of the PLO’s aim toward partition into
two states.[38]

One-state debate since 1999

In the last decade, interest has been renewed in
binationalism or a unitary democratic state. In 1999, the
Palestinian activist Edward Said wrote:
“…after 50 years of Israeli history, classic
Zionism has provided no solution to the
Palestinian presence. I therefore see no other way
than to begin now to speak about sharing the land
that has thrust us together, sharing it in a truly
democratic way with equal rights for all
citizens.”[39]

In October 2003, New York University scholar Tony

Judt broke ground in his article, "Israel: The
Alternative" in the New York Review of Books, in which
he argued that Israel is an "anachronism" in sustaining
an ethnic identity for the state and that the two-state
solution is fundamentally doomed and unworkable.[40]
The Judt article engendered a frenzied media blitz in
the UK and US and The New York Review of Books
received more than 1000 letters per week about the
Map of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, in 2007. Finding mutually
essay. A month later, political scientist Virginia Tilley acceptable borders has posed a major difficulty for the two-state
published "The One-State Solution" in the London solution.
Review of Books, arguing that West Bank settlements
had made a two-state solution impossible and that the international community must accept a one-state solution as
the de facto reality.[41]

Leftist journalists from Israel, such as Haim Hanegbi and Daniel Gavron, are also calling the public to face the facts
(as they see them) and accept the binational solution. On the Palestinian side, similar voices were raised. Israeli
Prime Minister Olmert argued, in a 2007 interview with the Israeli daily Ha'aretz, that without a two-state agreement
Israel would face "a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights" in which case "Israel [would be]
finished".[42] This echoes comments made in 2004 by Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei, who said that if
Israel failed to conclude an agreement with the Palestinians, that the Palestinians would pursue a single, binational
state.[43]
Between 2007 and 2010, a series of conferences have promoted the one-state agenda as an academic concern and a
popular movement. On November 29, 2007, the 60th anniversary of the UN decision to partition Palestine, a number
of prominent Palestinian, Israeli and other academics and activists issued "The One State Declaration", committing
themselves to "a democratic solution that will offer a just, and thus enduring, peace in a single state." The statement
One-state solution 7

called for "the widest possible discussion, research and action to advance a unitary, democratic solution and bring it
to fruition".[44] A scholarly conference, "One State for Palestine/Israel", was hosted at the University of
Massachusetts-Boston in March 2009.[45] A more activist conference was convened in Haifa in May 2010 by the
organisation al-Awda[46] followed in October 2010 by a conference in Dallas, Texas to launch a popular movement
for one democratic state.[47] Most of these events have issued declarations and statements supporting the idea of a
unified state: for example, the combined statement of the Madrid and London conferences (noted earlier); the
"Boston Declaration";[48] the "Haifa Declaration";[49] and the "Declaration for One Democratic State in Palestine"
issued at the Dallas conference.[50]
Antony Lerman has written that a de facto single state already exists, given Israel's complete control of the area.[51]

Arguments for and against

Proponents of a one-state solution argue that it ensures the equal rights of all ethnicities in the greater Palestine area
(Israel, West Bank, Gaza), by abiding in the rights granted to all people found in the original Israeli Declaration of
Independence:
...it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom,
justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political
rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion,
conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be
faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.[52]
Other arguments for a one-state solution include that it would unite all people of Palestine into a powerful, secular
state similar to Turkey. It would remove the whole Palestine area from the criticism and ostracism of the modern
world.[53]
Critics primarily point to the fact that it would make Israeli Jews an ethnic minority[54] in their own nation. The high
fertility rate among Palestinians, who already comprise almost half of the population in Israel and the Occupied
territories, accompanied by a possible return of Palestinian refugees, would quickly render Jews a minority. They
have also argued that Jews, like any other nation, have the right to self-determination, and that due to still existing
antisemitism, there is a need for a Jewish national home. Ethnically homogeneous nation-states are common around
the world, especially in Europe. They also argue that most of the Arab World is composed of entirely Arab and
Muslim states, with no equality for ethnic or religious minorities.
The Reut Institute expands on these concerns of many Israeli Jews and points out that a one-state scenario without
any institutional safeguards would negate Israel's status as a homeland for the Jewish people.[6] When proposed as a
political solution by non-Israelis, the natural assumption is that the idea is most probably being put forward by those
who are politically motivated to harm Israel and, by extension, Israeli Jews.[6] They argue that the absorption of
millions of Palestinians, along with a right of return for Palestinian refugees, and the generally high birthrate among
Palestinians would quickly render Jews an ethnic minority and eliminate their rights to self-determination.[6] The
destruction of Israel as a Jewish state is seen by some critics as a genocidal threat to Jews who live in Israel, as it
would require assimilation with what they fear would be an extremely hostile and anti-Semitic Muslim population,
who would become the ruling majority.[6]
Proponents of a one-state solution counter that unification is the only way to preserve a Jewish national home in the
territory in the long run, by finally eliminating threats to Israel's security and solving the Scylla and Charybdis
problem of military occupation or apartheid. They as well point to European examples of multinational states like
Belgium, Bosnia and Switzerland where the institutional layout effectively prevents disfranchisement of an ethnic
minority. Israeli Jews would have greater freedom and security in such a state, which would be at peace with its own
citizens and its neighbors, than they do now in a state that is eternally at risk of war and facing a domestic situation
of apartheid.
One-state solution 8

Some critics argue that unification cannot happen without damaging or destroying Israel's democracy. Most Israeli
Jews as well as Israeli Druze, some Israeli Bedouin, many Israeli Christan Arabs and even some Israeli Muslim
Arabs fear the consequences of amalgamation with the mostly Muslim Palestinian population in the occupied
territories, which they perceive as more religious and conservative. (Israeli Druze and Bedouin serve in the Israel
Defense Forces and there are sometimes rifts between these groups and Palestinians.[55] ) One poll found that, in a
future Palestinian state, 23% of Palestinians want civil law only, 35% want both Islamic and civil law, and 38% want
Islamic law only.[56] (Currently Israeli law is a combination of civil and religious, including Islamic, law.[57] ) This
negative view of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza prompts some critics argue that the existing level of rights
and equality for all Israeli citizens would be put in jeopardy with unification.[58]
One-state proponents counter that this argument is implicitly or explicitly racist in assuming that Palestinians are not
as capable of true democracy as Jews are. They argue that the conservative social values in the occupied territories
are partly a result of occupation itself, that Palestinians have always sustained strong democratic values in their
politics, and that the collapse of democracy in the Palestinian Authority is one reason it has lost credibility. They also
point out that, because real surveys of Palestinian and Arab opinion on the risks of unification are lacking, assertions
about such views are mere speculation.
Imagining what might ensue with unification, some critics of the one-state model point to violence during the British
Mandate, such as in 1920, 1921, 1929, and 1936-1939. In this view, violence between Palestinian Arabs and Israeli
Jews is inevitable and can only be forestalled by partition. These critics also cite the 1937 Peel Commission which
recommended partition as the only means of ending the ongoing conflict.[59] Critics also cite supposedly bi-national
arrangements in Yugoslavia, Lebanon, and Pakistan, which failed and resulted in further internal conflicts. Similar
criticisms appear in The Case for Peace (Dershowitz, 28). Rather than a powerful secular democracy, critics fear that
once the high Palestinian birthrate and the return of millions of refugees will give the land a majority of religiously
observent Muslims.
One-state proponents counter that violence during the Mandate was triggered by Palestinian rejection of partition and
Jewish statehood, which re-unification into one state would reverse and resolve. As for comparisons to Yugoslavia,
Lebanon and Pakistan, these cases may offer useful lessons but taking them as proof that unification is wrong for
Israel-Palestine is simplistic and omits important differences regarding history and politics. Yugoslavia is a very
complicated case that warns mostly against creating states by gluing together historically distinct areas to serve
great-power geopolitics and allowing continued ethnic supremacy (such as the dominance of Serbia). Pakistan is an
example of lasting tensions created by partition, not the dangers of unification. Lebanon is a case of sectarian politics
that shows the risks of linking identities mechanically to political representation, and so might warn against creating
a binational state in Israel-Palestine rather than unitary state. One-state proponents point instead to the transition of
South Africa from apartheid to democracy as a closer and more useful analogy.
Students of the Middle East, including erstwhile critic of Israeli policies Benny Morris, have argued that the
one-state solution is not viable because of Arab unwillingness to accept a Jewish national presence in the Middle
East.[60]
This argument is countered by those who point to regular Arab expressions of willingness to share the region with
Jews, including the Arab States Peace Plan of 2002. (However, this debate may be confused by different ideas about
what is meant by "Jewish national presence". If it simply means a Jewish "home" where Jewish citizens of a unified
state can pursue a Jewish cultural life, sustaining the Hebrew-language culture already developed in Israel, most
one-state proponents would consider this normal and acceptable. If it involves exclusively "Jewish-national" control
of territory and resources, and policies to exclude non-Jewish citizens from residence in Jewish areas, as is the case
in Israel today, this is seen as discriminatory and unacceptable.)
One-state critics argue that Arab citizens of Israel enjoy greater legal rights and a higher standard of living than
anywhere throughout the Arab world, proving that preserving the Jewish state would not necessarily mean that its
Arab minority would suffer discrimination. It has also been argued that the Arab Peace Plan of 2002 was solely
One-state solution 9

meant to destroy Israel, as it demands a complete withdrawal to borders considered by many Israelis to be
dangerous, and demands the return of millions of Palestinian refugees, effectively extinguishing the Jewish state. It
has also been argued by some politicians such as Avigdor Lieberman that the majority of Israeli-Arab communities
are situated on the Palestinian border, and can easily be transferred to a Palestinian state, which would give Israel a
manageable Arab minority which could continue to enjoy full equality without threatening Israel's Jewish character.
One-state proponents point out that Israel's forced transfer of Palestinians would violate Palestinian human and
political rights as well as international law and would destabilize the region. The only way for Israel to solve its
"demographic threat" in the long run is to decentralize the country getting inspiration from and adapting the suitable
institutional safeguards and checks and balances of the political systems of Belgium, Bosnia, Switzerland,
Macedonia or Canada (Quebec). That way it can transform into a full democracy in which equal and full rights for
citizens are not a threat to the identity of either a majority or minority group.
Alternatively, a solution similar to the Benelux model would combine the advantages of both two-state solution and
one-state solution while avoiding their disadvantages and psychological barriers.

Prominent supporters
Some Israeli politicians, including former defense minister Moshe Arens, current Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin,
and the Knesset member Tzipi Hotovely have voiced support for a binational state through the supposition that this
is in fact the current nominal situation within Israel-Palestine.[61]

References
[1] Qadaffi, Muammar (2009-01-21 (online)/2009-01-22 (print edition)). "The One-State Solution" (http:/ / www. nytimes. com/ 2009/ 01/ 22/
opinion/ 22qaddafi. html?ref=opinion). The New York Times: p. A33. . Retrieved 22 January 2009.
[2] Nizar Habash (2008-2009). "Palisra" (http:/ / www. palisra. com/ ). The Palisra Project. The Palisra Project. . Retrieved 25 January 2011.
[3] Al Gathafi, Muammar (2003). White Book (ISRATIN) (http:/ / www. algathafi. org/ html-english/ cat_03_03. htm). . Retrieved 2008-04-16.
[4] FELICE FRIEDSON, "One-state or two-state solution", Jerusalem Post, 07/21/2010
[5] George Bisharat (3 September 2010). "Israel and Palestine: A true one-state solution" (http:/ / www. washingtonpost. com/ wp-dyn/ content/
article/ 2010/ 09/ 02/ AR2010090204665. html). Israel and Palestine: A true one-state solution. Washington Post. . Retrieved 7 February
2011.
[6] "One state threat" (http:/ / www. reut-institute. org/ Publication. aspx?PublicationId=346). One State Threat. Reut Institute. 2004. . Retrieved
25 January 2011.
[7] "Haifa Declaration" (http:/ / www. mada-research. org/ UserFiles/ file/ haifaenglish. pdf). The Haifa Declaration. Arab Center for Applied
Social Research. 2007. . Retrieved 25 January 2011.
[8] Palestinians in statehood warning (BBC, Nov. 4, 2009) (http:/ / news. bbc. co. uk/ 2/ hi/ 8341929. stm)
[9] "Palestinians in Israel" (http:/ / reut-institute. org/ data/ uploads/ PDFVer/ ENG. pdf). The Future Vision of the Palestinian Arabs in Israel.
Reut Institute. 2006. . Retrieved 25 January 2011.
[10] "Haifa Declaration" (http:/ / www. mada-research. org/ UserFiles/ file/ haifaenglish. pdf). The Haifa Declaration. Arab Center for Applied
Social Research. 2007. . Retrieved 25 January 2011.
[11] "NEC poll" (http:/ / www. neareastconsulting. com/ surveys/ all/ p211/ out_freq_q21. php/ ). NEC General Monthly Survey. Near East
Consulting. 2007. . Retrieved 25 January 2011.
[12] "NEC poll 2" (http:/ / www. neareastconsulting. com/ surveys/ ppp/ p22/ out_freq_q27. php/ ). NEC General Monthly Survey. Near East
Consulting. 2007. . Retrieved 25 January 2011.
[13] Benjamin Joffe-Walt (2010). "Jerusalem Post poll" (http:/ / www. jpost. com/ MiddleEast/ Article. aspx?id=171559). 'Jerusalem Post,
"Palestinians Increasingly Back 1-State". Jerusalem Post. . Retrieved 25 January 2011.
[14] "Jerusalem Media Poll" (http:/ / www. jmcc. org/ documentsandmaps. aspx?id=749). Poll No. 70, April 2010 - Governance and US policy.
Jerusalem Media and Communications Centre. 2010. . Retrieved 25 January 2011.
[15] Mohammed Assadi (2009). "Saeb Erekat and the One state solution" (http:/ / www. reuters. com/ article/ idUSL4593611). Palestinian state
may have to be abandoned - Erekat. Reuters. . Retrieved 25 January 2011.
[16] Olmert to Haaretz: Two-state solution, or Israel is done for (http:/ / www. haaretz. com/ hasen/ spages/ 929439. html), HaAretz, Nov. 29,
2007.
[17] "Palestinian PM's 'one state' call" (http:/ / news. bbc. co. uk/ 2/ hi/ middle_east/ 3381493. stm). BBC News. January 9, 2004. . Retrieved May
5, 2010.
[18] (http:/ / electronicintifada. net/ bytopic/ store/ 548. shtml)
One-state solution 10

[19] (http:/ / www. globalpolicy. org/ nations/ sovereign/ sover/ emerg/ 2004/ 1004onetwo. htm)
[20] (http:/ / fromoccupiedpalestine. org/ node. php?id=772)
[21] (http:/ / www. zmag. org/ content/ showarticle. cfm?ItemID=4693)
[22] "Two-State Solution Sells Palestine Short," CounterPunch, January 31-February 1, 2004 (http:/ / www. counterpunch. org/
bisharat01312004. html)
[23] Makdisi, Saree (May 11, 2008). "Forget the two-state solution" (http:/ / www. latimes. com/ news/ opinion/
la-op-makdisi11-2008may11,0,7862060. story). Los Angeles Times. . Retrieved May 5, 2010.
[24] Michael Tarazi (2004). "Equality is Important" (http:/ / www. nytimes. com/ 2004/ 10/ 04/ opinion/ 04tarazi. html). Two Peoples, One State.
New York Times. . Retrieved 25 January 2011.
[25] Arab News | World | One-state solution gains supporters (http:/ / www. arabnews. com/ ?page=7& section=0& article=117501& d=24&
m=12& y=2008)
[26] Facts about Israel: Historical Highlights (http:/ / www. mfa. gov. il/ MFA/ Facts About Israel/ History/ Facts About Israel- History) by MFA
[27] Ottoman Rule of Palestine (http:/ / www. britannica. com/ eb/ article-45065/ Palestine) by Encyclopedia Britannica
[28] The Hussein-McMahon Correspondence (http:/ / www. jewishvirtuallibrary. org/ jsource/ History/ hussmac. html) by Mitchell Bard on
Jewish Virtual Library
[29] UK National Archives, PRO CAB 27/24, reprinted in 'Palestine Papers, 1917-1922', by Doreen Ingrams, George Braziller Edition, 1973,
page 48.
[30] Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 (http:/ / www. yale. edu/ lawweb/ avalon/ mideast/ sykes. htm) from the Yale Avalon Project
[31] Balfour Declaration of 1917 (http:/ / www. yale. edu/ lawweb/ avalon/ mideast/ balfour. htm) from the Yale Avalon Project
[32] The Covenant of the League of Nations (http:/ / www. yale. edu/ lawweb/ avalon/ leagcov. htm) from the Yale Avalon Project
[33] The Palestine Mandate (http:/ / www. yale. edu/ lawweb/ avalon/ mideast/ palmanda. htm) from the Yale Avalon Project
[34] League of Nations: Minutes of the Seventeenth Session (http:/ / domino. un. org/ UNISPAL. NSF/ 3d14c9e5cdaa296d85256cbf005aa3eb/
5f21f8a1ca578a57052566120067f658!OpenDocument)
[35] British White Paper of 1939 (http:/ / www. yale. edu/ lawweb/ avalon/ mideast/ brwh1939. htm) from the Yale Avalon Project
[36] A/AC. 14/32 and Add. I of 11 November 1947. See full text in Walid Khalidi, From Haven to Conquest: Readings in Zionism and the
Palestine Problem until 1948 (Washington: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1987), #63 “Binationalism Not Partition”, pp. 645–701.
[37] Grabsky, August (August 10, 2005). "The Anti-Zionism of the Bund (1947-1972)" (http:/ / www. workersliberty. org/ node/ 4655). Workers'
Liberty. . Retrieved 2009-11-10.
[38] A history of conflict between opposing ideals (Le Monde Diplomatique, Oct. 2010) (http:/ / mondediplo. com/ 2010/ 10/ 03binationalism)
[39] Edward Said, ”Truth and Reconciliation,” Al-Ahram Weekly, 14 January 1999
[40] Tony Judt, "Israel: The Alternative," (http:/ / www. nybooks. com/ articles/ archives/ 2003/ oct/ 23/ israel-the-alternative/ ) The New York
Review of Books (October 23, 2003)
[41] (http:/ / www. lrb. co. uk/ v25/ n21/ virginia-tilley/ the-one-state-solution)
[42] Olmert to Haaretz: Two-state solution, or Israel is done for (http:/ / www. haaretz. com/ hasen/ spages/ 929439. html), HaAretz, Nov. 29,
2007.
[43] "Palestinian PM's 'one state' call" (http:/ / news. bbc. co. uk/ 2/ hi/ middle_east/ 3381493. stm). BBC News. January 9, 2004. . Retrieved May
20, 2010.
[44] The One State Declaration (http:/ / electronicintifada. net/ v2/ article9134. shtml), The Electronic Intifada, November 29, 2007. Accessed
December 1, 2007
[45] http:/ / onestateforpalestineisrael. com.
[46] Conference website: http:/ / www. awda1state. org.
[47] Conference and Movement information at: http:/ / www. onedemocraticstate. com.
[48] Available in English, Arabic and Hebrew at: http:/ / onestateforpalestineisrael. com/
[49] Available at: http:/ / www. ror1state. org/ awda/ index. php?option=com_content& view=article& id=50%3A2010-04-22-10-05-57&
lang=en
[50] Available at: http:/ / onedemocraticstate. com/ declaration.
[51] Lerman, Antony "Israel-Palestine is already a de facto single state." (http:/ / www. guardian. co. uk/ commentisfree/ 2009/ apr/ 29/
israel-palestine-one-state-solution) Guardian News, 29 April 2009
[52] The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel (http:/ / www. mfa. gov. il/ NR/ exeres/
11364F53-F19B-4760-AA91-E066DDD0B29B. htm) Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs
[53] Record of vote, un.org (http:/ / daccess-ods. un. org/ access. nsf/ Get?OpenAgent& DS=A/ C. 2/ 62/ L. 23/ Rev. 2& Lang=E)
[54] a b Shenhav, 2006, p. 191.
[55] Grant, Linda (March 17, 2004). "Tales of Tel Aviv" (http:/ / www. guardian. co. uk/ world/ 2004/ mar/ 17/ israel). The Guardian (London). .
Retrieved May 5, 2010.
[56] http:/ / www. pcrd-pal. org/ opinion_polls. php?pid=5
[57] http:/ / genderindex. org/ country/ israel
[58] http:/ / www. ynetnews. com/ articles/ 0,7340,L-3329865,00. html
[59] "Partition of Palestine" (http:/ / www. guardian. co. uk/ israel/ Story/ 0,,980135,00. html). London: The Guardian. July 8, 1937. . Retrieved
May 5, 2010.
One-state solution 11

[60] No Common Ground,By JEFFREY GOLDBERG, New York Times, May 20, 2009,http:/ / www. nytimes. com/ 2009/ 05/ 24/ books/
review/ Goldberg-t. html?_r=1& ref=books
[61] FELICE FRIEDSON, "One-state or two-state solution", Jerusalem Post, 07/21/2010

Bibliography
• Abunimah, Ali, One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse New York: Metropolitan
Books, 2006 ISBN 978-0805086669
• Dershowitz, Alan. The Case for Peace: How the Arab-Israeli Conflict Can Be Resolved. Hoboken: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., 2005.
• Friedlander D. and Goldscheider C., "The Population of Israel", Hebrew University, 1980* Hattis, Susan Lee.
The Binational Idea in Palestine during Mandatory Times. Haifa: Shikmona, 1970.
• Gavison, R., "Jewish and Democratic? A Rejoinder to the "Ethnic Democracy" Debate," Israel Studies, March
31, 1999
• Leon, Dan. Binationalism: A Bridge over the Chasm. Palestine-Israel Journal, July 31, 1999.
• Mendes-Flohr, Paul R. A Land of Two Peoples: Martin Buber on Jews and Arabs. Gloucester, Mass: Peter Smith,
1994.
• Pressman, Jeremy, "The Best Hope - Still?" (http://www.bostonreview.net/BR34.4/pressman.php) Boston
Review, July/August 2009.
• Reiner, M., "Palestine - Divided or United? The Case for a Bi-National Palestine before the United Nations"
Lord Samuel; E. Simon; M. Smilansky; Judah Leon Magnes. Ihud Jerusalem 1947. Includes submitted written
and oral testimony before UNSCOP; IHud's Proposals include: political, immigration, land, development
(Reprinted Greenwood Press Reprint, Westport, CT, 1983, ISBN 0-8371-2617-7)
• Sofer A., "Demography in the Land of Israel in the Year 2000", the University of Haifa, 1987
• "Begin Loyalist Given Inside Track for Dayan's Job", Washington Post, November 14, 1979
• "Fifteen Years' Successful Conquest Has Wounded Israel's Soul", Washington Post, June 6, 1982
• Said, E. "The End of the Peace Process: Oslo and After," Granta Books, London: 2000
• Virginia Tilley, The One-State Solution: A Breakthrough for Peace in the Israeli-Palestinian Deadlock (http://
www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=94535), University of Michigan Press, May 2005
Article Sources and Contributors 12

Article Sources and Contributors

One-state solution  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=412560393  Contributors: 23prootie, 6SJ7, AI009, Abdel Qadir, Acidburn24m, Acnaj, AladdinSE, Alberuni, Aldux,
Am86, Amazins490, Angr, AnonMoos, Apeloverage, Armon, Ashley Y, Ashley kennedy3, Atumrashukha, Bayboy1, Bonewah, Boodleheimer, Bosnorth, Calevb, Canadianism, Carolmooredc,
Chupacupcake, Classicalguss, Colin chee, CommonsDelinker, Dailycare, Deodar, Der Eberswalder, DieWeisseRose, Dinopup, Dlabtot, Doright, E0N, Eagle4000, Ed Poor, Edward, ElPax, Eric
Kvaalen, Euchiasmus, Europeaustralia, Ffaker, Firstamend, Formeruser-81, GHcool, Gabbe, Gaius Cornelius, Gatyonrew, Generaltapioca, George, Giovanni33, Gniniv, Googleplexer, Ground
Zero, Guy Montag, Guy Peters, Harlan wilkerson, Hasanisawi, Haspelmath, Hcobb, Hecht, Hertz1888, Historicist, Huldra, Hunterrepublicans, Hvn0413, I am Dr. Drakken, ILikeHowMuch,
IZAK, Ian Pitchford, Intgr, Jaakobou, JaapBoBo, Jayjg, Jklin, Joffeloff, John Quincy Adding Machine, John Z, Juudy, KAMiKAZOW, Kobolola, Lapaz, Laser813, Ligulem, Loson1,
Madaalcarmel, Mahmoud n musa, Manormadman, Mark K. Jensen, Maxim Leyenson, Mboverload, MeteorMaker, Metropolitan90, Michael Hardy, Michael Safyan, Mnemeson, Monosig, Morley
Harper, Mosaicnews, Mpatel, Mr Rookles, Mukadderat, Naapakh, Nicholas wright, Nightstallion, Nikosgreencookie, NuclearVacuum, Nutmeg39, OcciMoron, Off2riorob, Okedem, Opal10,
Padishah5000, PalestineRemembered, Pax:Vobiscum, Perspicacite, Petri Krohn, Pgan002, Phersu, Pockets23, Postdlf, Pylambert, Quickwik, Radon210, Reenem, Rhobite, Rjwilmsi, RobNS,
Robofish, RudyB, Rwendland, SE7, Sampo Torgo, Severino, Sheynhertz-Unbayg, Shii, Shuki, Shunpiker, Sidd2271, SimonP, Sreifa, Stephenzhu, Sterry2607, Steven J. Anderson, Ta bu shi da
yu, Tafkira, Tafkira2, Tallicfan20, Tegwarrior, Terra Novus, Tewfik, Thaurisil, TheCuriousGnome, ThePhantomCopyEditor, Thomas Blomberg, TicketMan, Tie Oh Cruise, Tim Q. Wells,
Tirpse77, Tkalisky, Tothebarricades.tk, Toussaint, Tyronen, Urmomulus, Urthogie, Vanished user 03, Vautrin, Viajero, Vice regent, Wikifan12345, Woohookitty, YUL89YYZ, Yahel Guhan,
YoYoDa1, Zachbe, Zero0000, ‫םיאפר לורט‬, 197 anonymous edits

Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors

Image:Is-wb-gs-gh v3.png  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Is-wb-gs-gh_v3.png  License: Public Domain  Contributors: =Original uploader was ChrisO at en.wikipedia
(Original text : )
Image:UNGA 181 Map.png  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:UNGA_181_Map.png  License: GNU Free Documentation License  Contributors: 23prootie, AnonMoos,
Joowwww, OwenBlacker, Roke, Talmoryair, Wouterhagens, 3 anonymous edits
Image:West Bank & Gaza Map 2007 (Settlements).png  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:West_Bank_&_Gaza_Map_2007_(Settlements).png  License: Public Domain
 Contributors: User:HowardMorland

License
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported
http:/ / creativecommons. org/ licenses/ by-sa/ 3. 0/