The New York Times’ blog “The Lede” is giving voice to the possibility of a one-state solution in Israel-Palestine because the current war in Gaza might irrevocably change the potential for a two-state solution. The blog quotes extensively from a few articles–including one by Edward Said–that call for a bi-national Israeli-Palestinian state. The inevitable comparison with South Africa is made. The Times’ blog post ends this way:
Several of the organizers of the conference were also involved in the drafting of The One State Declaration in 2007, but obviously without popular support from both sides, this idea will remain purely academic.
So if the two-state solution is indeed doomed, is a single democratic state that would be home to both Palestinians and Israelis a more realistic goal or a total impossibility?
That’s fine, I guess. But what the post totally neglects to mention is that a “one-state solution” inherently goes against everything that Zionism stands for. A bi-national state is not what Israel is all about. I’m not saying that the one-state plan shouldn’t be on the table–I think that everything should. But it seems to me neglectful not to mention what “one-state” would really mean for the Zionist dream.