One-State Solution

Core Idea of a One-State Solution

A one-state solution, in this context, refers to a single political entity that encompasses all the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Instead of two separate states, Israel and Palestine, there would be one shared state for all who live there, and usually also for many who claim a right to live there.

At its core, the idea asks two connected questions. First, who belongs to this political community. Second, on what basis should power, rights, and resources be organized and shared. Supporters and critics often agree that the demographic and territorial realities have made a complete territorial division very hard. Where they differ is in how they imagine one state, and whether they see it as just or realistic.

The term “one-state solution” itself is contested. For some, it implies liberal democracy and equal citizenship. For others, it implies permanent dominance by one group over another. To understand proposals for one state, it is important to separate descriptive discussions of what already exists from normative visions of what should replace it.

Different Models of One State

Within the broad label of a one-state solution, there are several distinct models. They differ in who holds sovereignty, how citizenship is allocated, and how collective identities are recognized. The main models discussed in the debate are unitary liberal democracy, binational or multinational federation, and variants of hegemonic or majoritarian control.

A unitary liberal democratic model envisions a single state with one citizenship and one central government. All citizens would have equal civil and political rights under the same legal framework. In principle, there would be no legal distinction between “Jewish” and “Arab” citizens. Group identities would be protected by general rights such as freedom of religion, language, association, and political participation, rather than by separate constitutional status.

A binational or multinational model assumes that Jews and Palestinians are not only individuals but also distinct national communities. In this vision, the state recognizes at least two national groups with collective rights. Power sharing is often central to this idea. Political arrangements would guarantee representation and a degree of autonomy to each group. This could resemble consociational systems, where major decisions require broad agreement among communities, or it could combine shared central institutions with regional self-rule.

A hegemonic or majoritarian one-state outcome is also a possible “one state,” but it is not usually promoted as a “solution” by those who emphasize equality. This model refers to a scenario where a single political authority controls the entire territory without granting equal rights to all residents. Critics argue that such arrangements amount to permanent domination of one group and often invoke terms like apartheid or ethnocracy to describe them. Some observers describe the current situation as being on a spectrum toward this kind of one-state reality, whether or not it is officially acknowledged.

Key Debates Around Citizenship and Demography

The debate over a one-state solution is tightly bound to questions of citizenship, voting rights, and population balance. In a single state, who would be granted full citizenship, and on what timeline. Would citizenship automatically include all current residents of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. What about Palestinian refugees and their descendants outside the territory.

Supporters of an equal one-state model generally argue that every person living under the same sovereign power should have equal political rights, including the right to vote and to run for office. Many also support some form of return or at least admission rights for Palestinian refugees. For them, the one-state framework allows reconciliation of territorial questions with a broader vision of justice and equality.

Opponents, especially among those who prioritize the idea of Israel as a specifically Jewish state, often see a single democratic state with equal voting rights as threatening that national character. They point to demographic projections that suggest that Jewish citizens might become a numerical minority or at least lose their current political dominance. For them, the issue is not only security, but also the preservation of a national project that is defined in ethnic or religious terms.

On the Palestinian side, positions are also diverse. Some see one state as the only way to secure full rights after years of occupation and fragmentation. Others worry that one state could dilute Palestinian national identity or result in Palestinian political weakness in an integrated system. For them, demography by itself does not guarantee real influence if institutions are designed in a way that entrenches existing power imbalances.

Equality, Identity, and the Character of the State

Beyond numbers, the one-state debate raises deep questions about the character of the state. Can a state remain defined as “Jewish” or “Palestinian” if it includes equal citizens from both national communities. Is it possible to reconcile a clearly ethnonational definition of the state with the principle of equal citizenship regardless of ethnicity or religion.

Many one-state proposals suggest moving from an ethnonational state to a civic one. In this view, the state’s primary identity would be grounded in citizenship, shared institutions, and equal rights rather than in belonging to a particular ethnic or religious group. Collective identities would exist and be protected, but they would not define who fully belongs to the state.

Other proposals try to combine civic equality with explicit recognition of both national identities. A binational framework, for example, could describe the state as the shared homeland of both Jews and Palestinians. The constitution could state that both peoples have historic and cultural ties to the land and guarantee the right to maintain language, culture, and national symbols. This approach attempts to balance individual equality with collective recognition.

There is also the question of official symbols, holidays, and narratives. In a one-state arrangement, would the flag, anthem, and public memorial days remain what they are now, or would new ones be created. Changes to symbols are usually highly sensitive, because they touch on memories of conflict, suffering, and victory. For some, reimagining state symbols is essential to create a shared sense of belonging. For others, it feels like a threat to treasured narratives and hard-won achievements.

Territorial Questions in a One-State Framework

A one-state solution does not erase the importance of land, even though it changes how borders are imagined. Instead of an international border dividing two states, the focus shifts to internal administrative lines, property rights, and patterns of access and control.

One question concerns existing Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including those considered illegal under most interpretations of international law. In a one-state scenario with equal citizenship, settlers and Palestinian residents would theoretically be citizens of the same state. The political and security logic that originally justified separate legal systems and road networks would lose its official rationale. Yet the economic and physical implications of these infrastructures would still exist. Any credible one-state proposal must address whether and how current settlement patterns are regularized, integrated, or transformed.

Another question involves land ownership and property claims. Many Palestinians have personal or family claims to land and property lost in past wars and displacements. A one-state arrangement might open the door to legal mechanisms for restitution, compensation, or recognition. The design of such mechanisms would be highly contentious. On one hand, they are seen as part of justice and historical acknowledgment. On the other hand, they could unsettle many current residents who fear losing homes or facing costly legal challenges.

Territorial questions also arise around internal boundaries. Some binational or federal one-state proposals imagine regions or cantons where one group is locally dominant. These areas might have cultural or educational autonomy, while sharing common defense, currency, and foreign policy. Advocates see this as a way to give each community a secure base. Critics worry that it could reinforce segregation and create new forms of inequality.

Refugees, Return, and Historical Justice

Any serious discussion of a one-state solution must grapple with the question of refugees and historical justice. For many Palestinians, the right of return is not merely a legal or demographic issue, but a central part of collective memory and identity. A single state that spans the territory of historic Palestine is sometimes presented as a framework within which at least some form of return can be realized.

There are several different visions of how this might work. One approach proposes unrestricted individual return, in which refugees and their descendants can choose to live anywhere in the state, subject only to practical constraints. Another approach suggests a combination of limited physical return, settlement in specific areas, and financial compensation. Some proposals emphasize symbolic recognition and truth telling, including official acknowledgment of past expulsions and suffering.

These ideas intersect with concerns among many Israeli Jews about security, loss of a Jewish majority, and possible reversal of past wars. They often fear that a large-scale return could produce new cycles of conflict over homes, villages, and neighborhoods that now house other families. As a result, many mainstream Israeli political actors reject full implementation of return in a one-state context.

Supporters of one state argue that without addressing refugee claims in a meaningful way, any political arrangement will remain unstable and morally incomplete. They point to examples in other conflicts where truth commissions, reparations, or mixed compensation-return schemes have been used to balance justice and feasibility. Critics counter that the scale and sensitivity of the Palestinian refugee issue make such comparisons imperfect and question whether the necessary level of trust and institutional capacity exists.

Security, Institutions, and Power Sharing

A one-state solution also raises profound questions about security and institutional design. If all inhabitants of the territory share the same state, then the existing division between “Israelis” and “Palestinians” as separate security categories would need to be reconsidered. For some, the idea of a unified security apparatus that includes former enemies is almost unimaginable. For others, it is precisely this integration that could gradually reduce fear and hostility.

Institutional models vary. A centralized one-state democracy might have a single parliament elected by all citizens, a unified judiciary, and one national army or security force. A binational or consociational system might design power sharing more explicitly. The constitution could guarantee that key offices are held by members of different communities, that major changes require cross-community consent, or that security forces are integrated on a quota basis.

These arrangements involve trade-offs between effectiveness, stability, and fairness. Critics argue that rigid power sharing can lead to paralysis and can entrench divisions instead of overcoming them. Supporters respond that, given the depth of mistrust and the history of violence, strong constitutional guarantees are essential at least in the early decades of a shared state.

There is also the question of transitional justice related to security forces. Many people on both sides have experienced or taken part in violence. In a one-state framework, would there be amnesties, trials, or some combination. How would the state deal with former combatants, prisoners, and victims. The answers to these questions are not only legal, but also deeply emotional and political.

Arguments in Favor of a One-State Solution

Supporters of a one-state solution usually start from the assessment that territorial separation has become extremely difficult in practice. They note the geographic intermingling of populations, especially in Jerusalem and in areas of the West Bank with extensive settlement. For them, instead of trying to draw ever more complicated borders, it is more honest and potentially more just to accept that there is already de facto one political space and to democratize it.

Many argue that a single state that grants equal rights to all its citizens is more consistent with universal ideas of human rights and democracy. They claim that ethnic or religious privilege in access to citizenship, land, or political power is incompatible with these principles. For these advocates, a civic or binational one-state arrangement could resolve both the occupation and the question of Palestinian statelessness in one political framework.

Another argument emphasizes shared interests and daily realities. Economic networks, infrastructure, and environmental systems already cross current lines. In a single state, joint planning of water, transport, and housing could be more efficient and less subject to conflict. Some also see potential cultural and intellectual gains from a more integrated society, where people meet not only as adversaries but as coworkers, neighbors, and fellow citizens.

There is also a moral argument rooted in historical narratives. Some Palestinians and some Israeli Jews who support one state see it as a way to acknowledge the depth of attachment both peoples have to the entire land. Instead of competing for exclusive ownership, the idea is to create a shared homeland where neither side has to renounce its historical ties.

Arguments Against and Main Criticisms

Opponents of a one-state solution raise several major concerns. One common criticism is that, given the level of mutual distrust and the history of violence, a shared state would be unstable and possibly violent. They fear that political competition could quickly take the form of ethnic mobilization, with each group trying to control the state to protect itself or dominate the other.

For many who support the idea of Israel as a Jewish state, a one-state model with equal voting rights is seen as a demographic and cultural threat. They worry that Jewish collective self-determination would be weakened or lost if Jews became one community among several in a state that must treat all equally. They also fear that historical grievances could fuel attempts at retribution.

From a different angle, some Palestinians and their supporters criticize one-state proposals as unrealistic or as a distraction from more attainable goals. They argue that demanding full equality in a single state ignores the current balance of power. In their view, there is a risk that the stronger side would use negotiations about one state simply to normalize its control while avoiding meaningful concessions. They also warn that, under conditions of deep inequality, formal “one person, one vote” does not automatically lead to real equality in the economy, media, and institutions.

There is also skepticism about international responses. Many states and organizations have invested diplomatic and political capital in a two-state framework. Shifting to a one-state paradigm would require rethinking legal, financial, and political commitments. Critics believe that without strong external support, a one-state project would struggle to advance beyond rhetoric.

Comparison with Other Conflict Transformations

Discussions of a one-state solution often draw analogies to other historical transitions. Examples that appear frequently include South Africa after apartheid, consociational arrangements in places like Northern Ireland or Lebanon, and multinational states such as Belgium or Switzerland. These comparisons serve different purposes. Supporters may use them to show that entrenched conflicts and unequal systems can, at least in principle, evolve into more inclusive political orders. Opponents often point to the difficulties and crises these systems have faced to argue that they are poor models for a stable future.

It is important to note the limits of these analogies. Each case involves its own mix of history, identity, and external involvement. For instance, the balance between national identities, the role of religion, and the regional context differ significantly between these examples and the Israel-Palestine setting. Yet the comparisons help clarify which kinds of institutional mechanisms might be considered, and what kinds of risks and opportunities they might involve.

For those interested in the one-state idea, examining these other contexts can highlight concrete questions about constitutional design, minority protections, and conflict resolution. For those skeptical of one state, the same cases can underline the potential for institutional deadlock, persistent mistrust, and the need for strong norms of compromise that may not yet exist.

Practical and Political Obstacles

Even if one accepts the theoretical attractiveness of some one-state models, the practical obstacles are significant. On the Israeli side, most mainstream political parties and much of the public explicitly reject a single democratic state that would include equal rights for all Palestinians under current conditions. They often see such proposals as a veiled call to end Israel’s character as a Jewish state. On the Palestinian side, public opinion is divided, with support fluctuating over time and depending on the level of trust in other options.

There are also entrenched institutional interests. Security services, political elites, and economic actors have adapted to the current fragmented landscape. Any transition to a unified state would threaten many existing positions and privileges. These groups may resist changes that weaken their authority or open them to legal and political scrutiny.

Internationally, most diplomatic initiatives and legal frameworks have been framed around two states. Changing this focus would require not only political will but also reinterpreting many agreements and resolutions. Some external actors fear that abandoning the two-state language without a clear and accepted one-state framework would create a vacuum and increase instability.

In addition, there is the question of sequencing. Even supporters of one state disagree about how to get from the current situation to a shared, democratic system. Some advocate immediate recognition of equal rights, followed by gradual institutional reform. Others propose interim arrangements, federations, or confederations that might later evolve into deeper integration. Opponents worry that each of these steps carries its own risks of breakdown or exploitation by the stronger side.

Imagining Daily Life in a Shared State

Beyond high politics, the one-state debate also concerns everyday life. How would schools, neighborhoods, and workplaces change in a shared state. Would people continue to live largely in separate communities, or would integration increase over time. Would languages be taught differently. Would children learn multiple historical narratives in school or a new combined curriculum.

Some proponents imagine mixed cities where Hebrew and Arabic are both widely used in public spaces, where universities and hospitals serve all communities equally, and where people move more freely without checkpoints. They often focus on potential economic benefits and on the possibility of new social and cultural exchanges.

Others fear that segregation and suspicion would continue, even within a formally unified state. They point to examples where deep social divisions persist despite equal legal frameworks. They also note that language, religion, and memory can remain powerful boundaries even when there is no physical separation.

The future of Jerusalem is especially central in these visions. In a one-state scenario, the city could become a shared capital, administered by a joint authority, or it could have a special status. Supporters of one state sometimes see this as a way to transcend competing exclusive claims. Skeptics worry that competing religious and national emotions in the city could make any shared management extremely fragile.

One-State Solution as Idea, Threat, or Last Resort

For different actors, the language of a one-state solution functions in different ways. For some Palestinian thinkers and activists, it is a positive, principled vision. For some critics of current Israeli policies internationally, it is a way to draw attention to what they see as the erosion of the possibility of two states. Among some Israeli leaders, the phrase “one state” is often used as a warning to argue against inaction, with the claim that failure to reach a two-state agreement may eventually lead to growing pressure for one person, one vote in a single entity.

In this sense, the one-state idea operates both as a concrete proposal and as a political tool. People may invoke it sincerely, strategically, or as a way to highlight the costs of continuing the status quo. When studying the debate, it is important to pay attention to who uses the term, in what context, and with what intended audience.

Whether seen as a hopeful alternative, a dangerous illusion, or an inevitable outcome if other paths close, the one-state solution occupies an increasingly central place in discussions about the future between the river and the sea. Understanding its variations, promises, and challenges is essential for anyone trying to think systematically about possible futures for Israelis and Palestinians in the same land.