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	Palestine
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
Current Leaders
Mahmoud Abbas Salam Fayyad	Shimon Peres Benjamin Netanyahu
International Brokers
Diplomatic Quartet ( )
Arab League ( )  –  –
Other Proposals
Arab Peace Initiative – Elon Peace Plan Lieberman Plan – Geneva Accord – Hudna Israel's unilateral disengagement plan Israel's realignment plan Peace-orientated projects – Peace Valley  – Isratin – One-state solution – Two-state solution – Three-state solution – Middle East economic integration
Major projects, groups and NGOs
Peace-orientated 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.
view ' talk ' edit

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2008)

The one-state solution, also known as the binational solution and Isratin (Hebrew: יö�שö�ׂרö�טö�ין–Ž, Yisrä�tä«n; Arabic: ø�ø�ø�ø�ø�ùŠù�–Ž, Isrä�tä«n) , is a proposed approach to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Proponents of a binational solution to the conflict advocate a single state in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with citizenship and equal rights in the combined entity for all inhabitants of all three territories, without regard to ethnicity or religion. While some advocate this solution for ideological reasons, others feel simply that, due to the reality on the ground, it is the only practicable solution.^[1][2]

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 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. 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. In November 2009, Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat proposed the adoption of the one-state solution if Israel didn't halt settlement construction.

[edit] 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 or, alternatively, as the best, most just, and only way to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Increasingly, such 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/Judea and Samaria and the apparently irrevocable entrenchment of Israel's presence in the Israeli-occupied territories.

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, such as was achieved in the transition from Apartheid in South Africa. Within the small but growing one-state movement, the "unitary/bi-national" debate has sometimes itself been divisive.

[edit] Popular support

Support among Israeli Jews, and Jews generally, for a one-state solution is very low. The likelihood that Palestinians might constitute an electoral majority in a bi-national or unitary state is seen by many Israeli Jews as a threat to the very premise of Israel, which is imagined as a state for the Jews. Dissolution of Israel as a Jewish state is regarded by the majority of Israeli Jews as unthinkable. While a 2000 poll soon after the outbreak of the second intifada found 18% of Israeli Jews supported a one-state solution, support for the idea has been limited by subsequent violence associated with the Palestinian intifada of 2000.^[3] However, in July 2010, the liberal Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz reported on the rising interest in a one-state solution among Israel's right-wing and West Bank settlers.^[4]

A one-state solution is generally endorsed by Israeli Arabs. A large majority fiercely oppose any political solution which would further reduce their already second-class status as Israeli citizens. 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. 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. 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. 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.^[5]

Palestinian opinion in the West Bank and Gaza appear split on the question. The Palestinian Authority adheres adamantly to a two-state model. Despite this, polls indicate that a one-state or bi-national solution is enjoying rising support among Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, possibly due to the diplomatic stalemate.^[6] Precisely what is meant by "one-state solution" in these polls, is not always clear. 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".^[7] 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".^[8] 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..^[9] 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..^[10] 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. However, no clear or unified Palestinian political voice has yet emerged endorsing one state. This may be partly because the Palestinian Authority, trying to maintain support for the diplomatic process, has discouraged one-state proposals and debate.

Some Israeli Jews and Palestinians who oppose a one-state solution have nevertheless come to believe that it may come to pass. 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".^[11] 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.^[12] Several other high-level Fatah Palestinian Authority officials have voiced similar opinions, including Hani Al-Masri. In 2004, Yasser Arafat said 'time is running out for a two-state solution' in an interview with Britain's The Guardian newspaper. Many political analysts, including Omar Barghouti, believe that the death of Arafat harbingers the bankruptcy of the Oslo Accords and the two-state solution.

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 called for "the widest possible discussion, research and action to advance a unitary, democratic solution and bring it to fruition".^[13]

Today, the prominent proponents for the one-state solution include Muammar al-Gaddafi of Libya (see also Saif Islam Qaddafi Isratin proposal),^[14][15] Palestinian author Ali Abunimah,^[16] Palestinian-American producer Jamal Dajani, Palestinian lawyer Michael Tarazi,^[17] Jeff Halper,^[18] Israeli writer Dan Gavron,^[19] Israeli historian Ilan Pappé, Palestinian-American law professor George Bisharat,^[20] American-Lebanese academic Saree Makdisi,^[21] and American academic Virginia Tilley. They cite the expansion of the Israeli Settler movement, especially in the West Bank, as a compelling rationale for bi-nationalism and the increased unfeasibility of the two-state alternative. They advocate a secular and democratic state while still maintaining a Jewish presence and culture in the region. They concede that this alternative will erode the dream of Jewish supremacy in terms of governance in the long run.^[22]

[edit] Historical Background of the One-State Solution

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 / Jews, the Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Umayyads, Abbasids, Turks, Crusaders, and Mamluks controlled the region at one time or another.^[23] From 1516 until the conclusion of World War I, the region was controlled by the Ottoman Empire.^[24]

From 1915 to 1916, the British High Commissioner in Egypt, Sir Henry McMahon, corresponded by letters with Hussein, 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,^[25] 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.^[26]

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.^[27] 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".^[28]

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.^[29] 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".^[30]

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".^[31]

How UN members voted on Palestine's partition     In favour      Switched to In favor      Abstained      Against      Absent

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 the Peel Commission. The Arab community entirely rejected the Peel Partition Plan, which included population transfers, primarily of Arabs. The partition plan was abandoned, and in 1939 Britain issued its White Paper 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.^[32]

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.^[33] 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 the permanent expulsion of approximately 750,000 Palestinians 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.^[34]

[edit] One-State Debate since 1999

Map of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, in 2007. Finding mutually acceptable borders has posed a major difficulty for the two-state solution.

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.'^[35]

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.^[36] 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 essay. A month later, political scientist Virginia Tilley published "The One-State Solution" in the London 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.^[37]

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. Many Israelis and Palestinians who oppose a one-state solution have come to believe that it may come to pass.^{[citation needed]} 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".^[38] 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.^[39]

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 called for "the widest possible discussion, research and action to advance a unitary, democratic solution and bring it to fruition".^[40]

Today, the prominent proponents for the one-state solution include Muammar al-Gaddafi of Libya (see also Saif Islam Qaddafi Isratin proposal),^[41][42] Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine general secretary Ahmad Sa'adat,^[43] Palestinian author Ali Abunimah,^[44] Palestinian-American producer Jamal Dajani, Palestinian lawyer Michael Tarazi,^[45] Jeff Halper,^[46] Israeli writer Dan Gavron,^[47] Israeli historian Ilan Pappé, Palestinian-American law professor George Bisharat,^[48] American-Lebanese academic Saree Makdisi,^[49] and American academic Virginia Tilley. They cite the expansion of the Israeli Settler movement, especially in the West Bank, as a compelling rationale for binationalism and the increased unfeasibility of the two-state alternative. They advocate a secular and democratic state while still maintaining a Jewish presence and culture in the region. They concede that this alternative will erode the dream of Jewish supremacy in terms of governance in the long run.^[50]

Even some Israelis and Palestinians who oppose a one-state solution have come to believe that it may come to pass. 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".^[51] 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.^[52] Several other high-level Fatah Palestinian Authority officials have voiced similar opinions, including Hani Al-Masri. In 2004, Yasser Arafat said 'time is running out for a two-state solution' in an interview with Britain's The Guardian newspaper. Many political analysts, including Omar Barghouti, believe that the death of Arafat harbingers the bankruptcy of the Oslo Accords and the two-state solution.

[edit] Arguments Pro and Con

PRO: 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). It abides by 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.^[53] . (emphasis added)

Other arguments for a one-state solution include: It would unite all people of Palestine into a powerful, secular state similar to Turkey. It would give Israeli Jews a better alternative to becoming an ethnic minority^[54] in their own nation. It would remove the whole Palestine area from the criticism and ostracism of the modern world^[55].

The map shows the diplomatic recognition for both Israel and Palestine.      Israel and the Palestinian Territories      Recognition of Israel only      Recognition of Israel, with some recognition of Palestinian State      Recognition of both Israel and Palestinian State      Recognition of Palestinian State, with some recognition of Israel      Recognition of Palestinian State only      No recognition

CON: Israeli Jews generally reject these arguments and counter that a one-state scenario would negate Israel's status as a homeland for the Jewish people. 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. The destruction of Israel as a Jewish state is seen by some critics as a genocidal threat to Jews who live in Israel. It is often linked to the call of Iranian President Ahmadinejad to "wipe Israel off the map".^[56]

PRO: 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 agree that the state of Israel as it is presently composed, with laws that privilege Jews and exclude Palestinians from equal rights and freedoms, would have to be "dismantled" to allow for a truly equal democracy. But one-state proponents regularly argue that 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.

CON: 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 IDF and there are sometimes rifts between these groups and Palestinians.^[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]

PRO: 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.

CON: 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 conflicts. Similar criticisms appear in The Case for Peace (Dershowitz, 28).

PRO: 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.

CON: Students of the Middle East, including erstwhile critic of Israel 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]

PRO: 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.)

[edit] See also

• Two-state solution
• Three-state solution
• Multiculturalism
• Judah Leon Magnes
• Martin Buber
• Hannah Arendt
• Hugo Bergmann
• Seif Islam Qaddafi proposal
• Tony Judt
• Ghada Karmi
• Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel
• Virginia Tilley
• Gilad Atzmon
• Melting pot
• Brit Shalom
• Multiculturalism

[edit] External links

[edit] Centralised Archive

Democratic Secular State for Israel/Palestine This is an extensive and up-to-date bibliography on the one-state debate, including articles and books pro and con and links to discussion forums. Citations below suggest sample literature.

[edit] Sample articles advocating the one-state solution

• Settlers and Palestinians who prefer a bi-national state Haaretz (Hebrew)
• Is Israel Finished? The Jerusalem Post
• The London One State Group
• The One State Declaration
• Is the Two-State Solution in Danger? on [[Haaretz]

Indented line

]

• Putting the Pieces Together? on The Boston Review
• Proposal for an Alternative Configuration in Palestine-Israel by Alternative Palestinian Agenda
• Israel: The Alternative by Tony Judt
• The One-State Solution by Virginia Tilley
• The One-State Solution by Daniel Lazare
• PALISRA: an artistic exploration of the one-state solution
• Occupied Minds
• What's Wrong with the One-State Agenda? by Hussein Ibish
• One-state solution a pipedream by Ray Hanania
• A One-State Solution: Advocating Israel's Destruction by Honest Reporting
• Who's in Favor of Annihilating Israel? by Yoel Esteron
• Why advocating a one-state solution does not help the Palestinians by Dan Fleshler

• http://onedemocracy.co.uk
• The London One State Group
• The One State Declaration (Madrid and London, 2007)
• Israeli Jews and the one-state solution by Ali Abunimah, Electronic Intifada
• Is the Two-State Solution in Danger? in Haaretz
• Putting the Pieces Together? in The Boston Review
• Proposal for an Alternative Configuration in Palestine-Israel by Alternative Palestinian Agenda
• Israel: The Alternative by Tony Judt, New York Review of Books
• The One-State Solution by Virginia Tilley, London Review of Books
• The One-State Solution by Daniel Lazare, The Nation
• PALISRA: an artistic exploration of the one-state solution
• Occupied Minds

[edit] Sample articles criticizing the one-state solution

• What's Wrong with the One-State Agenda? by Hussein Ibish
• One-state solution a pipedream by Ray Hanania
• A One-State Solution: Advocating Israel's Destruction by Honest Reporting
• Who's in Favor of Annihilating Israel? by Yoel Esteron
• Why advocating a one-state solution does not help the Palestinians by Dan Fleshler
• Zionist Realities by Yoav Peled, New Left Review (2006)

[edit] References

[edit] Bibliography

• Ali Abunimah, 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?" 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, University of Michigan Press, May 2005