Talk:One-state solution

{{edit extended-protected|One-state solution|answered=yes}}

Location of error: 3rd paragraph of article (with 1st line counted as the 1st paragraph); 2nd sentence. Change "...sought out a wish to..." to "...sought out from a wish to..." Add the word 'from' after 'out'. Goman1 (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

:{{done}} Alduin2000 (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The two sources come from opinion pieces and don't really say anything. The part that says Palestinians wanted people to be second class citizens is not really supported and seems intended to make the Palestinians look like racists.

I propose either removing the section or adding more detail on the level of support such as polling. Right now it just seems a propaganda piece for pro-Israel voices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:ECC8:F00:20C9:8BEB:C926:84BD (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Almost two years later, this section has not been fixed. The two pieces cited [25] and [26] in no way talk about the Palestinians views of the one-state solution after the 1930's. [26] states "Today, the prospect of such a binational state emerging is even more remote: Neither people wants a binational state, especially after more than a century of mutual bloodletting and warfare." This provides zero evidence of modern Palestinian support either for or against a binational state. Comparing the anti-immigration sentiment of Mandatory Palestine in the 1930's-1940's to the open air prisons and other such atrocities going on today is disingenuous. Either remove this section or flesh it out with actual citations containing real evidence. - User: Nyaalek 9:51 8 April 2021

the need for this section to be fixed is urgent & its disheartening to see two years of inaction on the part of the class of wikipedia editors privleged to be able to edit this section. as other editors have stated, the article used as citation for the claim that palestinians do not support a binational approach (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/rashida-tlaib-misled-skullduggery-listeners-israel/589417/) does not actually cite any reliable source such as polling on the claim that the binational approach is unsupported among palestinians, nor is it even a news article. its simply a one-sided opinion piece & which does not qualify as a legitimate source of information to cite something as important as palestinian views on binationalism. anyone can write whatever they want in an opinion piece, that doesnt make it a reliable source.

as the conflict between palestinians and settler colonial israeli policies comes to the forefront of international attention, more people will be turning to this website for information, & currently what they are going to get when they go to this page is an uncited claim from a propaganda piece. it is imperative that someone from the class of wikipedians who are allowed to edit this article take responsibility for the fact that as it stands, this article is spreading harmful misinformation. everyone who can change that but instead stands around ignoring this years-long flaw is complicit in that. Neonpixii (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Neonpixii and advocate for removal or clarifying with reliable sources. I came across this section and clicked through to the citation [26]. It is an opinion piece by written by Benny Morris, who is a self-proclaimed Zionist and has no authority to speak on behalf of all Palestinians. Sauceweb (talk) 06:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

:Sauceweb's comments remind me of the infamous Fox News interview with Reza Aslan. In that interview, Dr. Aslan was told that he has no authority to write about Jesus since he is a self-proclaimed Muslim. Of course, the answer to that bigoted statement is that if Dr. Aslan did the research and is an expert on the subject at hand, he can speak about it with authority despite whatever religious/political views he may identify with personally. --GHcool (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

::Where you miss is that Reza writes from a historical perspective, hence objective in nature. Whereas the source in question ([26]) is purely subjective as it is an opinion piece. Regardless of Benny Morris's credentials, what he writes as an opinion does not automatically make it objective and true. The same is applied to Aslan as well if he were to write an opinion piece. It's ridiculous to claim that Morris's opinion can be taken as an authority for what ordinary Palestinians want regarding their self-determination. It's doubly ridiculous that we are even sitting here essentially debating the meaning of "opinion". Sauceweb (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

"Antiquity to World War 1" should mention that the only sovereign countries comprising the land during that period were Israel and Judea during biblical times.Normvcr (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

:Good point. Although every historian knows this to be true, I can't find a source on a quick google search that says specifically asserts this. I fear that if we assert it on Wikipedia without a source, it will be taken down as an example of original research or synthesized research. Does anybody have a source that asserts it? --GHcool (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

[https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NAgk4MeeNiMqUO_46UqeEd6YoiwJoJPF/view This 1946 document] shows something that is appropriate for this article. Unfortunately Google Drive links tend to disappear. Zero^talk 01:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

the Philippines, Liberia, and Haiti are all colored in a color not explained in the key. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.147.122.107 (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Quote under Academia:

"The conference also features Dianna Buttu, former legal advisor for the PLO "

Should be Diana Buttu, one n: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana_Buttu ralian (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|One-state solution|answered=yes}}

Under heading "Arguments for and against," subheading "Against," final paragraph. "with each intifada more violent in the last" should be "with each intifada more violent than the last" Mlb96 (talk) 06:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

:File:Yes check.svg Done – robertsky (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|One-state solution|answered=yes}}

When the Golan Heights is first mentioned below the map of Israel-Palestine perhaps there could be a link to the article for further reading? Thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EmilePersaud 10:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

:File:Yes check.svg Done Run n Fly (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Since both this article and Isratin refer to a proposed "unitary, federal or confederate Israeli-Palestinian state" is there any reason not to merge them, the resulting article being entitled Bi-national state (Israeli–Palestinian peace process)? Mcljlm (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

:{{u|Mcljlm}}, basing on your recent edits, I assume that 'this article' refers to Isratin? – robertsky (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

:: {{u|robertsky}}, I intended "Since both this article and Isratin ..." to appear here. I've edited my text. What do you think of suggestion? Mcljlm (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

A suggested article to add to the bibliography:

Jeremy Pressman, "Assessing One-State and Two-State Proposals to Solve the Israel-Palestine Conflict," E-IR, June 27, 2021, https://www.e-ir.info/2021/06/27/assessing-one-state-and-two-state-proposals-to-solve-the-israel-palestine-conflict/

Nutmeg39 (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|One-state solution|answered=yes}}

“the Israel Project” ought to be renamed to ‘The Israel Project’, given their acronym. 117.96.14.189 (talk) 13:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

:That should be discussed on the talk page at Talk:Israel Project, probably in the form of a move request. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|One-state solution|answered=yes}}

For the sentence widely viewed among supporters as a form of colonialism, change the link to the more specific settler colonialism instead. All three sources (refs 8, 9, 10) for this sentence use the term "settler colonialism". (Though the link for source 8 appears to be broken, [https://web.archive.org/web/20210126165325/https://oldwebsite.palestine-studies.org/resources/special-focus/zionist-settler-colonialism here is the most recent page I can find via archive.org])
aismallard (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

:{{done}} I also updated citation 8 for the new URL. Thank you. TimSmit (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The first line of Arguments for and against - Academia is poorly sourced. The source used doesn't explain how a one-state solution is anti-Israel and should really be removed.--Kappasi (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

{{ping|Tombah}} your last edit broke 1RR. Please self-revert. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

:{{ping|Onceinawhile}} Please show me where. I reverted only once during the last 24 hours. Tombah (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=One-state_solution&diff=1091875892&oldid=1091872504 22:26, 6 June 2022]

::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=One-state_solution&diff=1091829217&oldid=1087557798 16:52, 6 June 2022]

::Both edits removed the reference to apartheid from the lede. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

This page itself talks about the varitey of different kinds of One-State Solutions, but the problem is when I'm on the page for a specific Political Party and all it says about what Solution they support is One-State and then links here, that doesn't tell me specifically what that party means by that. And if the page says they support a Binational State but links to this page I'm inclined to wonder if an editor was using the temrinology wrong? KuudereKun 15:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

:Afaik, these are alternative names for the same thing. If some other page is wrongly pointing here that's a problem on that page, not this one. Selfstudier (talk) 17:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

::Binational State epxlictly means a State that is Both Jewsih and Arab, "One State Solution' can still apply to solution that one of those two groups must be removed. KuudereKun 17:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

:::That doesn't seem like a solution. Selfstudier (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

::::It is from the POV of those who propose it. KuudereKun 23:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

:::That's the first time I've heard the 'One-State Solution' described like that (it does not usually incorporate ethnic cleansing) - do you have a reliable source for that? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

::::The Popular Front for the Liberation fo Palestine is refered to on this site as a One-State Solution Party but when I look deeper into them they do not seem like Binationalists in the same way the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine is. KuudereKun 14:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

:::::The discussion just took a Monty Python-esque turn. But more seriously, Wikipedia is not a reliable source - so again, do you have a reliable source for this? Iskandar323 (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

::::::Yes and Wikipedia usage of these terms is all I was talking about. KuudereKun 15:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

:::::::Incidentally, the one line on that page about this topic appears to be entirely unsourced, so as far as in-Wiki references go, it's also pretty useless. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

::::::::In any case, even if a single minor political faction has an alternative take, there is no reason why that can't also be explained on this page too. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|One-state solution|answered=yes}}

Change "However, interest in a one-state solution is growing as the two-state approach has not yet managed to reach a final agreement." to "However, interest in a one-state solution is growing as the two-state approach has not managed to reach a final agreement."

The word "yet" implies it will happen in the future and of course we don't know that. Midwood123 (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

:{{done}} Lemonaka (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|One-state solution|answered=yes}}

Under "Palestinian views on a binational state": Change "in which Europeans immigrants" to "in which European immigrants". There seems to be an extra "s" there. Midwood123 (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

:{{done}} Lemonaka (talk) 10:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

There should not be a reference to the Green Party of the United States. That is one organization within a very small movement in the United States. This article serves a purpose of clarifying what the one-state solution is. No one in the US or Israel or Palestine is turning to the GPUS for guidance here.

The section also equates Iran's policy that Israel has no right to exist with the one-state solution. That is very, very confusing. There is no reference to any information on Iran. This should also be removent. 2600:6C64:7B3F:4900:8C4C:35FD:6B40:8F0E (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

:Iran removed as unreferenced OR and Green party position as only a primary source (Green Party website). Selfstudier (talk) 09:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

"During the following years, a large population of Jews living in Arab nations (close to 800,000) left or were expelled from their homes in what has become known as the Modern Jewish Exodus and subsequently resettled in the new State of Israel."

This sentence from the article gives an impression that is not in compatible with the well sourced article Jewish exodus from the Muslim world.

This article states that the number of Jews resettling in Israel from Arab countries between 1948 and 1951 was 260.000.

If you instead focus on the exodus from Muslim-majority countries (not only the Arab ones) between 1948 and 1980 it is stated as being 650.000.

The sentence should be edited for clarity. At the moment it seems to imply, that the number of Jews from Arab countries resettling in Israel during 'the following years' exceed the number of Jews resettling in Israel across more than three decades and from both Arab and non-Arab Muslim-majority countries. Holscher (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

“one state” in the lead should be replaced for “a single state” to disambiguate this from the two-state solution. 82.36.70.45 (talk) 12:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The Arguments in Favor section contains the following sentence: "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'." That is an argument against, not in favor, right? I think this sentence should be moved to the Arguments Against section. --Westwind273 (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

A big hole in this article is the Zionist position pre-1948, which was an overwhelming preference for a Jewish state in all of Palestine. Even before the Balfour Declaration that was true. Zero^talk 03:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

{{Edit extended-protected|One-state solution|answered=yes}}

The first two lines of the section on Palestinian views on binational state are incorrect. As early as the 1930s, Palestinians put forward proposals for a secular, democratic state for Jews and Arabs.

{{TextDiff|Prior to the 1960s, no solution to the conflict in which Arabs and Jews would share a binational state was accepted among Palestinians. The only viable solution from the Palestinian point of view would be an Arab state in which European immigrants would have second-class.|As early as the 1930s, Palestinians put forward proposals for a secular, democratic state for Jews and Arabs.{{cite journal |last1=Said |first1=Edward |title=Zionism from the Standpoint of Its Victims |journal=Social Text |date=Winter, 1979 |volume=No. 1 |page=52 |pages=7-58}}}}

On page 52 of Edward Said's 1979 essay "Zionism from the Standpoint of its Victims," he writes "first formulated in the 30s by the Arab wing of the Palestinian Communist party: the idea of a secular, democratic state in Palestine for Jews and Arabs." {{cite journal |last1=Said |first1=Edward |title=Zionism from the Standpoint of Its Victims |journal=Social Text |date=Winter, 1979 |volume=No. 1 |page=52 |pages=7-58}}

{{reftalk}}

:File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Tlx|Edit extended-protected}} template.  Spintendo  05:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

{{Edit extended-protected|One-state solution|answered=yes}}

Currently, the opening text in the "Palestinian views on a binational state" lack any sources and direct quotes. Please update the opening paragraph with the following text, quote, and sources:

Prior to the 1960s, a binational state was not accepted among Palestinians. The Palestinian position evolved following Israel's victory in the Six-Day War, when it became no longer realistic to expect the militarily powerful and densely populated Jewish state to disappear. Eventually, Palestinian leadership began flirting with the idea of a two-state solution.[28] However, some remained open to a one-state solution with equal rights for all; as a leader of the PLO’s prevailing Fatah faction observed in 1969, “there is a large Jewish population in Palestine, and it has grown considerably in the last twenty years. We recognize that it has the right to live there and that it is part of the Palestinian people. We reject the formula that the Jews must be driven into the sea. If we are fighting a Jewish state of a radical kind, which had driven the Arabs out of their lands, it is not so as to replace it with an Arab state which would in turn drive out the Jews. What we want to create in the historical borders of Palestine is a multiracial democratic state...a state without any hegemony, in which everyone, Jew, Christian, or Muslim will enjoy full civic rights.”[29][30] [31]

In 1979, Moshe Dayan contended…

-

[29] Gresh, Alain. (1988). The PLO: The Struggle Within. London . Zed Books. Pg. 33.

[30] Abunimah, Ali (2006) One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse. Picador.

[31] Armstrong, Karen (2001). Holy War: The Crusades and Their Impact on Today’s World. Anchor Books. pg. 137-138 Maroo530 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

:File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Tlx|Edit extended-protected}} template.  Spintendo  05:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

A fifth model is to establish two dozen or more co-equal cantons similar the Swiss model. Such diverse figures as the prominent Zionist leader, Itamar Ben-Avi, offered variants of this idea in the 1930s and 1940s. In 1947, several nations, including Lebanon, proposed dividing Palestine into multiple Jewish and Arab "cantons." The UN rejected the plan in favor of a two-state solution. {{Cite journal |last=Beito |first=David |title=A Way Out Of The Israel-Palestine Conflict: A Swiss Style Canton System|url=https://www.19fortyfive.com/2023/06/a-way-out-of-the-israel-palestine-conflict-a-swiss-style-canton-system|journal=19FortyFive|date=June 9, 2023}}

{{Reflist-talk}}

: There are two other, not entirely mutually exclusive, versions of the One State Solution that don't seem to be convered here? e.g. Netenyahu, Ben Gvir, and the guy who got killed on 2001-10-17 all seem(ed) to support a "one state solution" … but it doesn't sound like this one? There are infinite one state solutions, depending on what sort of state it would be, but there's at least three broad ideas.

:* bi-national

:* it's all Israel

:* it's all Palestine

: …and then each of the One Nation states (fittingly, the name of a somewhat objectionable political party in my own country) have ethno-Nationalist and religios spins them. It gets blurry in that advocates of each of the one nation solutions often claim - disingenuously, and intermittently depending on their audience - to want a bi-national state. But there are still 3 central ideas, even if the boundaries blur.

: If they have their own names or articles, they should have a prominant link in the "See Also" or "Don't Confuse".

: Do such articles exist?

: What are their names?

: If they don't already exist then this article needs a new subsection for each.

: and if they're already here they need to be easier to find?

: Irtapil (talk) 08:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|One-state solution|answered=yes}}

Hello, I'm a volunteer for the One Democratic State Initiative, a small Palestinian political endeavor advocating for the creation of one secular state as a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We would like to request to be added on the page, under the In favor section, thank you very much.

This is our website if you need more information: https://odsi.co/en, and this is what should be put on the page if the request is granted:

The One Democratic State Initiative, a Palestinian-led political endeavor, advocates for one singular secular Palestinian state, where all citizens have the same rights and freedom of movement.

Please make small edits where you see necessary.

Goodbye. Thoma000 (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Not done, please provide secondary source(s). Selfstudier (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

:Here are some secondary sources, I hope they are enough: https://odsi.co/en/ods-material/ Thoma000 (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

The Jewish "community" did not accept the two state partition plan. The Jewish Agency did. Zionists did not accept the partition plan.

More also needs to be said and described about what the one-state unitary democracy that was proposed by the Arab states in 1946 and 1947, what did it entail and why was it rejected? Otherwise it is a disservice to history and injustice to Palestinians to frame that rejection without any context or explanation and to follow the rejection of the two-state landgrab solution with the point of invasion. Ozmungs (talk) 06:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The Reut Institute was renamed to Reut Group, and changed its website along with it. The citation https://www.reut-institute.org/Publication.aspx?PublicationId=346 is dead along with https://reut-institute.org. Someone needs to go through and rename the group on the page to Reut Institute and the sources to their new website at https://www.reutgroup.org/ --Swesham (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|One-state solution|answered=yes}}

Change the reference link for 13 to this URL instead: https://apnews.com/united-states-government-e5c04516ee3c40d9800768573e2f7a8e

The current link is dead, but this is likely the same wire copy filed by the AP reporter, Josh Lederman, and has the same quotes referenced. Paul Brescia (talk) 10:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

:{{done}} — hako9 (talk) 07:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|One-state solution|answered=yes}}

Haskeymorrison (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The British Mandate of Palestine also included modern-day Jordan. I feel this is important to mention.

:File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 07:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Right now, "one-state reality" is bolded in the introductory paragraph, but the one-state reality is a framework for understanding the status quo and is not directly related to proposed solutions, such as the one-state solution. The "one-state reality" as described by Michael Barnett ([https://mondoweiss.net/2023/04/the-one-state-reality-goes-mainstream/ see this article]) is that what currently exists in Israel is apartheid and that "what matters is that the apartheid label accurately describes the facts on the ground and offers the beginnings of a road map to change them." The connection that Bennett draws with solutions is specifically that the "one-state reality" is a direct challenge to the Two-state solution because "...this one-state reality contrasts with the illusory idea that there is a democratic Israel, however flawed, that is a distinct entity from the area under its military occupation since 1967."

David Remnick's 2014 New Yorker article (the one currently used in this article) uses the phrase "one-state reality" and refers to the status quo (of 2014). Again, the "one-state reality" is offered as a critique of the two-state solution through quoting several people who dismiss the two-state solution.

So basically, I propose that "One-state reality" is redirected to a newly written section of Israeli apartheid that would explain how scholars have used "One-state reality" to discuss apartheid and critique the two-state solution. JasonMacker (talk) 01:17, 9 April 2025 (UTC)