The current round of Israeli-Palestinian fighting, marked by the deaths of some 1,200 people in Israel and more than 18,000 Palestinians in Gaza, as well as the displacement of 1.9 million Gazans (85 percent of the population), constitutes the latest thread in a tapestry woven from over a century of colonial legacies, wars, and failed diplomatic endeavors. The traditional partition paradigm that has dominated the discourse on Israel/Palestine since the 1937 Peel Commission report has faced many challenges. Along the way, the two-state solution concept has been used to delegitimize Palestinians’ aspirations for equality and freedom, has allowed for relentless settlement expansion on Palestinian land, and has offered a fig leaf for perpetuating occupation with western support.
Israel’s escalation of violence against Palestinians and the genocidal level it has reached in Gaza, in both intent and outcomes, highlight the urgency of reevaluating the efficacy of the two-state solution. Indeed, this solution finally has reached a virtual impasse. In its stead, it is time to advocate for a one-state solution that emerges from the periphery of debate to the center, offering a radical yet increasingly considered alternative. This paradigm, based on the principle of equal rights for all citizens, proposes a single democratic state encompassing Israel, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza, in which all citizens exercise their rights and fulfill their responsibilities as equal members of society.
The Shift in Paradigm: From Two-State to One-State
The mainstream western discourse that is focused on partition into two separate states overlooks the history of the Zionist movement and its intent—shown in historical archives and current practices—to replace indigenous Palestinians with Jewish settlers. While paying lip service to the idea of a Palestinian state, this paradigm has effectively led Israel to obfuscate the intent of the two-state discourse by managing the occupation rather than ending it. The resilience of the Palestinian identity, more than 125 years since Austro-Hungarian journalist Theodor Herzl introduced his vision of a Jewish state, challenges the legitimacy of a model that has consistently marginalized an indigenous population.
The resilience of the Palestinian identity, more than 125 years since Austro-Hungarian journalist Theodor Herzl introduced his vision of a Jewish state, challenges the legitimacy of a model that has consistently marginalized an indigenous population.
The two-state solution’s exclusionary nature reveals a fundamental flaw: the authority to define a Palestinian state has always rested with external powers, whether Israel, the United Kingdom, or the United States. This stems from a colonial legacy in which Palestinians are not included in the discussion about their fate, contradicting international principles of self-determination.
The Palestinian state envisioned during the 1990s “peace process”—from the Madrid Peace Conference to the Oslo Accords—was never meant to be sovereign. This approach has continued, as evidenced by recent decisions such as former President Donald Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, a move that overlooked Palestinian claims.
Emergence and Rationale of the Partition Paradigm
The two-state solution, as pursued, has been fundamentally flawed, marked by Israel’s reluctance to cede control over key territories and by the failure of the Oslo Accords to establish a Palestinian state. The Palestinian Authority, for its part, has struggled to deliver progress amid these constraints. The expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, deemed illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention, has fractured the contiguity of any potential Palestinian state. Reports from Human Rights Watch and B’Tselem, among others, have documented how settlements exacerbate the viability of any form of self-determination for Palestinians, erode human rights, and diminish the feasibility of a two-state solution. Many organizations, including Israeli and international ones, have argued that this situation meets the definition of apartheid. The expansion of settlements and discriminatory practices against Palestinians have altered the demographic and geographic landscape—700,000 Israeli settlers now live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem—making the partition of this land impractical.
The political asymmetry is stark, with Israel as a sovereign state enjoying significant military strength and support from western allies, most notably the United States.
The political asymmetry is stark, with Israel as a sovereign state enjoying significant military strength and support from western allies, most notably the United States. In contrast, the Palestinian side, subjected to Israeli authority, is fragmented by internal divisions between its two main factions, Fatah and Hamas, and lacks a unified strategy. This schism emanates from the different path each has taken: Fateh has opted for negotiations with Israel while Hamas has engaged Israel in military confrontations. This asymmetry has led to a negotiation stalemate and a status quo that heavily favors Israel, further illustrating the ineffectiveness of the partition model.
The role of external powers, especially the United States, in maintaining the status quo while providing lip service to the idea of Palestinian statehood (most recently expressed by President Joe Biden’s full-fledged support of Israel’s campaign against Hamas), illustrates the failure of the partition model. In essence, the fundamental colonial dynamic at play, reminiscent of a bygone era, pits a disenfranchised population against a powerful settler movement. This incongruity underlines the need for a solution that acknowledges and rectifies the historical record of dispossession and displacement.
The Case for One State
A departure from the two-state solution to another model based on equality and democratic rights for all is imperative. The one-state solution entails a single democratic state encompassing Israel, the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza, with equal rights for all inhabitants, irrespective of ethnicity or religion. This paradigm shift addresses core issues: the right of return for Palestinian refugees, as stipulated in UN General Assembly Resolution 194; the status of Jerusalem; and the question of settlements. The one-state solution reimagines these as internal challenges of a unified polity rather than as zero-sum elements of a bilateral conflict.
An oft-cited key objection by opponents of the one-state solution in Israel and the West is the fear of the dissolution of Israel or the displacement of Israelis. However, this solution aims to restructure political and social frameworks to ensure equality and justice for all.
An oft-cited key objection by opponents of the one-state solution in Israel and the West is the fear of the dissolution of Israel (the nation-state of the Jewish people) or the displacement of Israelis. However, this solution aims to restructure political and social frameworks to ensure equality and justice for all, respecting and integrating both Israeli and Palestinian narratives, without domination or suppression by one or the other as is currently the case. The Basic Law on the Jewish Nation-State, passed by the Knesset in 2018, epitomizes the institutionalization of this inequality within Israel itself. This law elevates Jewish identity above all other identities. While discriminatory practices against the non-Jewish population, especially Palestinians, have long been practiced, the Nation-State Law has legally moved Israel into an ethno-nationalist country. Hence, a one-state solution predicated on absolute equality, offering identical rights to all citizens, paves the way for reconciling the historical divide. This will require a radical rethinking of identity and belonging, moving away from exclusionary narratives and toward a model of shared citizenship and equal rights.
The future of Israel-Palestine cannot be predicated on the erasure or the domination of one people by another. The one-state solution calls for an honest reckoning with the past and a courageous commitment to equality. Israelis and Palestinians alike should imagine a unified state that upholds the rights and dignity of all its citizens, forging a shared identity from the rich tapestry of its diverse peoples. This vision, while challenging, holds the promise of a lasting peace built not on separation and segregation but on the foundations of justice and mutual respect.
Benefits and Risks
While ideologically compelling, the transition to a one-state reality presents challenges, including the establishment of a political system that ensures equal representation and prevents the dominance of one group over another. Drawing on examples like Belgium, Canada, or South Africa’s rainbow nation framework, this solution advocates for some form of a consociational system. This could take the shape of a grand coalition to ensures that both Palestinians and Jewish Israelis have seats at the ruling table, thereby diluting the possibility of hegemonic power. The notion of a mutual veto or a concurrent majority would also empower distinct groups to shield their fundamental interests from being overridden by collective decisions. Intrinsically linked to this is the concept of segmental autonomy, which allows distinct communities to self-govern in matters that are central to their identity, thus fostering a sense of agency and belonging.
The principle of proportionality is key—it prescribes equitable representation across the political spectrum and fair distribution in civil service appointments and in the allocation of public funds.
Lastly, the principle of proportionality is key—it prescribes equitable representation across the political spectrum and fair distribution in civil service appointments and in the allocation of public funds. While Canada does not embody a consociational system in the purest form, it nevertheless incorporates elements of power sharing, particularly in its accommodation of English and French linguistic communities alongside its indigenous peoples. South Africa, through its transition from apartheid, embraces a different approach, promoting a vision of unity and diversity. While not a textbook case of consociationalism, its efforts mirror the system’s foundational intent to acknowledge and celebrate diversity within a singular national ethos.
To be sure, integrating two distinct legal and educational systems and harmonizing economic policies will be a considerable undertaking. The disparities in economic development between Israel and the Palestinian territories will necessitate a carefully planned economic strategy to bridge gaps and promote equitable growth. Another critical aspect is the question of security. A joint security apparatus, respectful of the rights and concerns of both communities, must be developed. This would require dismantling existing paradigms of security based on segregation and control and, instead, fostering a system based on mutual protection and cooperation.
Addressing these challenges requires a commitment to profound structural changes, a willingness to compromise, and a dedication to engage civil society alongside political leaders. The international community, particularly countries with experience in conflict resolution and state-building, can support this transformative process.
A one-state solution will necessitate a radical restructuring of the current political, social, and economic frameworks to accommodate the needs and identities of two peoples with a long history of conflict.
This is not an easy undertaking. A one-state solution will necessitate a radical restructuring of the current political, social, and economic frameworks to accommodate the needs and identities of two peoples with a long history of conflict. It will require robust mechanisms for power sharing, protecting minority rights, and ensuring social justice. Precedents exist in other contexts, such as South Africa, where a deeply divided society embarked on a path of truth and reconciliation to forge a new national identity. But the unique circumstances of Israel-Palestine demand tailored solutions developed through inclusive dialogue.
Future Prospects for Peace and Stability
The discourse on the Israel-Palestine conflict stands at a critical juncture, in which the traditional paradigms have proven inadequate in resolving long-standing grievances, in meeting Palestinian aspirations, and in offering security to Israelis and Palestinians. While laden with challenges, the proposition of a one-state solution offers a paradigm shift toward a future predicated not on division but on equity and mutual respect.
The vision of a unified state does not seek to erase either narrative but aims to weave them both into a cohesive and inclusive national story. It calls for a bold reimagining of identity and governance, where diversity is not a source of division but a foundation for strength. As we look forward, the path is undoubtedly fraught with complexities. However, the promise of a peaceful coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians, in which all individuals are afforded dignity and equal opportunity, provides a compelling alternative to the enduring cycle of conflict. This journey, grounded in the principles of democracy, equality, and justice, is not merely a political endeavor but a moral imperative for the future of both Israelis and Palestinians.
In embracing this transformative vision, acknowledging the arduous road ahead is needed; so is the recognition of the power of hope and the human capacity for change. The one-state reality, as a symbol of coexistence and shared destiny, can transform the landscape of the Middle East, offering a beacon of peace in a region long shadowed by strife.
The views expressed in this publication are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the position of Arab Center Washington DC, its staff, or its Board of Directors.
The opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints articulated in this publication are also not to be construed as being endorsed by, or indicative of, the perspectives of any organization with which the author is or has been associated, whether presently, previously, or in any prospective engagements.
