It has generally been accepted that the future of a lasting and secure peace between the Israeli and Palestinian people will be based on a two-state solution. The advantages and the continued support for a two-state solution are that this would create an independent Israel and Palestine and is the mainstream approach to resolving the conflict. It is absolutely clear that Israelis and Palestinians want to run their countries differently, with the Israelis desiring a Jewish state and the Palestinians wanting a Palestinian one. As neither side can achieve its vision in one state, the only possible solution that satisfies everyone involves separating Palestinians and Israelis.

However, the continuing difficulties and diminishing prospects for such an outcome have led to an increasing interest in a one-state solution, partly out of a sense of hopelessness and partly out of real concern that if the chances of a two-state solution continue to diminish, a de facto one-state outcome will be inevitable. The main question however is whether a one-state solution which would merge Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip into one country, will satisfy the basic needs of both sides: security for Israelis and statehood for Palestinians.

It is envisaged that every person who would live in this one state, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, would have equal individual rights, regardless of their ethnic or religious identity. They could live anywhere they want and they would have the right to vote in national elections. The capital would be Jerusalem and the government would include Jews and Palestinians. The one state could be solely based on equal individual rights, or it could be a bi-national state meaning the two communities have some communal rights as well.

A central obstacle to this one-state vision is Israel’s self-definition today and how that would transition to a single state with full equality for Israelis and Palestinians. Israel as a Jewish State is based on laws, symbols, laws and government policies that protect and identify with its Jewish inhabitants. Also, Israel today supports Jews in many ways such as migration, housing, employment, political rights, and treatment by security organs of the state so why would Israeli Jews be willing to lose those characteristics? Few states if any have ever willingly changed their self-definition or national identity in such a significant fashion due to external demands rather than internal transformation.

Moreover, could this one state serve as the fulfilment of Zionism and as a refuge for world Jewry if it was not defined as the Jewish State? What would be the status of the Law of Return, which gives Jews from anywhere in the world the right to become Israeli citizens? The law is a key pillar of the Jewish identity and it is integral to the State of Israel. Furthermore, the chances that Israel will be willing to relinquish control over its security are simply not likely to happen as part of this transition.

But what do the Israeli and Palestinian people actually feel about a one-state solution? Polls show that there is little enthusiasm for this option. A poll in June 2022 found that 22% of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip support one state. A survey in 2019-2020 showed that fewer than 10% of Israeli Jews supported the annexation of Judea and Samaria to establish one state.

The principal argument against a one-state solution from Israel’s point of view is a probable outcome that in time, it will not remain a Jewish state. The Jewish population today is about 80% of the country’s total. By combining Israel’s population of approximately 10 million with the disputed territories of 5 million, the one state will have a population of 15 million. By doing so, the percentage of Jews would fall to somewhat over 50% and the Palestinians would then make up a very significant minority. Over time, the Palestinian population will almost certainly increase faster than the Jews and after granting the Palestinians full and equal civil rights, that would mean the end of the Jewish state. A decision not to grant those rights would make the state undemocratic. Due to this problem, there is a general unwillingness to annex all the disputed territories, and that was probably the reason Ariel Sharon decided to evacuate Gaza.

It is also possible that if the Palestinians achieved a majority, Jews could become second-class citizens and be persecuted as they have historically been in Arab and Muslim countries.

But it is most unlikely that a single state would bring an end to the conflict. The chances are that if a central regime is imposed on different sectarian/ethnic groups, the internal discourse will only increase the internal struggles as the creation of one state will almost certainly not erase decades of anger or the religious, cultural, social, and economic differences.

Ultimately, however, it is most likely that the Palestinians will continue to refuse any alternative to the two-state solution, which in their opinion is agreed upon and supported by the international community. From their point of view, the shift from a two-state solution to a one-state represents a risk of losing their national struggle for liberation and independent statehood.

As things stand, the Palestinians believe that the two-state solution is the best route they have to call for an end to the illegitimate Israeli ‘occupation’, which is the status of the West Bank as defined by UN resolutions and international law. The Palestinians perceive the alternatives to the two-state solution with great suspicion and mistrust and they see the one-state option as a risk that could normalise the annexation by Israel of the whole of the West Bank.