The Only Just Solution: One state with equality for all of Israel's/Palestine's Arab and Israeli citizens, with a "Right of Return" for all of those ethnically cleansed since 1948. During the recent elections in Israel, PM Netanyahu announced that there would never be a Palestinian state while he was prime minister. Fine - let there be one state.
—Ronald David Jackson
Netanyahu Victory Opens Door for One-State SolutionBy Francis Boyle, IPA
Just before the election, Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu ruled out the creation of a Palestinian State, which means that he repudiated the two-state solution to the dispute between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
This has been the pronounced objective of American foreign policy since the Madrid Conference and the Middle East Peace Negotiations in 1991 held under the auspices of the United States government and with the full support of the international community.
If implemented, Netanyahu’s decision will leave the Palestinians no alternative but to pursue the creation of one-state of Palestine that will include what is known today as Palestine, Israel and Jerusalem and where a majority of its citizens will be Palestinians.
Before the Palestinian Declaration of Independence of 15 November 1988, the position of the Palestine National Council and the Palestine Liberation Organization was that there should be only one, democratic and secular state for the entire mandate for Palestine, which would include Israel within it.
It was PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat himself who encouraged the Palestine National Council to accept the two-state solution in the Palestinian Declaration of Independence of 15 November 1988. After 27 years of fruitlessly trying to pursue a two-state solution, it is now time for the Palestine National Council and the PLO to reconsider their options.
Professor Francis A. Boyle, University of Illinois College of Law, served as Legal Adviser to the PLO and Chairman Yasser Arafat on the 15 November 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence and as legal adviser to the Palestinian delegation to the Middle East peace negotiations and its chair Dr. Haidar Abdul Shaffi from 1991 to 1993. His books include Palestine, Palestinians, and International Law (2003) and The Palestinian Right of Return under International Law (2011).
One and Two State Solutions: The Myth of International Consensus
By KATHLEEN CHRISTISON
Among the panoply of reasons put forth against advocates of a one-state solution for Palestine-Israel, perhaps the most disingenuous is the injunction, repeated by well meaning commentators who believe they speak in the Palestinians’ best interests, that Palestinians would simply be irritating the international community by pressing for such a solution, because the so-called international consensus supports, and indeed is based upon, a two-state solution. At a time when the "international consensus" could not be less interested in securing any Palestinian rights, particularly in forcing Israel to withdraw from enough territory to provide for real Palestinian statehood and genuine freedom from Israeli domination, this call for compliance with the wishes of an uncaring international community is at best an empty argument, at worst a hypocritical dodge that undermines the Palestinians’ right to struggle for equality and self-determination. By telling the Palestinians that they cannot even speak out for one state without antagonizing some mythical consensus around the world, this line of argument undermines their right simply to think about an alternative solution.
The one-state solution is envisioned as an arrangement that would see Palestinians and Jews living together as citizens of a single, truly democratic state, with guaranteed rights to equality and guaranteed equal access to the instruments of governance. Such a solution would mean the end of Zionism as currently conceived and the end of Israel as an exclusivist Jewish state, but it would guarantee equal civil and political rights for Israeli Jews and the right to encourage further Jewish immigration, just as it would guarantee — for the first time — equal civil and political rights for Palestinians and the right of Palestinian refugees exiled over the last 60 years to return to their homeland.
The notion of establishing a single state for Palestinians and Jews, although historically not a new idea, has regained currency in recent years as it has become increasingly obvious that Israel’s absorption of more and more Palestinian land in the occupied territories — land stolen from Palestinians for constantly expanding settlements, a vast network of roads for the exclusive use of Israelis, the monstrously destructive separation wall, and Israeli military bases and closed security zones — has made the vision of "two states living side by side in peace" a cruel joke.
Establishment of a single state is strongly supported by a small but growing core of scholars and activists. Virginia Tilley raised the idea in her 2005 book The One-State Solution. Ali Abunimah continued the discussion with One Country the following year, and Joel Kovel contributed Overcoming Zionism in 2007. In the last few years, numerous articles, international conferences, and debates between advocates and opponents of one state, largely in Europe and Israel, have addressed the possibilities. An emerging grassroots movement in Palestine is directing its energies toward promoting one state, working with scholars and solidarity activists around the world.
But many treat the idea with casual disdain, dismissing it as "naively visionary," "an illusion," or simply "a non-starter." Other opponents at least give the idea more thought and have put forth some reasoned, and often quite soundly reasoned, argumentation for their opposition. This article will address only one of the objections: one of the most commonly heard, that a single state would violate an "international consensus" supporting the two-state solution.
This argument holds that international bodies such as the United Nations and its subsidiaries, as well as human rights organizations and the leaderships of most nations in the world — including, not least, the PLO and the Palestinian Authority themselves — want the end of the occupation and support Israel’s continued existence inside its 1967 borders, along with the establishment of a Palestinian state in the one-quarter of Palestine that would thus be left to the Palestinians. This international consensus is automatically assumed to be sacrosanct, apparently simply because it is international (and perhaps also because it does not endanger Israel’s continued existence as a Jewish state).
The most obvious response to this honoring of the international consensus is that in actuality the international community is not in the least interested in what becomes of the Palestinians, now or ever in the past, and does not give more than lip service to any particular solution. Whatever "international consensus" exists has never been interested in specific positions but primarily in accommodating the U.S. and its policies — which ultimately means preserving Israel’s existence above all, supporting a two-state solution because that is the position to which the U.S. and Israel currently themselves pay lip service, but not exhibiting concern for Palestinian rights in any respect. The international community does not initiate policies; it merely parrots and goes along with the positions promoted by the centers of international power, in this case the U.S. and Israel.