Talk:One-state solution

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

One-state reality should be a redirect to a section in Israeli apartheid rather than here

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 (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)

@JasonMacker, ideally we should have an article called One-state reality (term), we should describe the usage of that term. Then One-state reality can redirect to either One-state reality (term) or Israeli apartheid.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:26, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 20 May 2025

Add because the link redirects to irrelevant page and :

Diff:

−

In 2011, a poll by Stanley Greenberg and the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion and sponsored by the [[Israel Project]] revealed that 61% of Palestinians reject a two state solution, while 34% said they accepted it. 66% said the Palestinians’ real goal should be to start with a two-state solution but then move to it all being one Palestinian state.

+

In 2011, a poll by Stanley Greenberg and the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion and sponsored by the [[Israel Project]] revealed that 61% of Palestinians reject a two state solution, while 34% said they accepted it.<sup class="noprint Inline-Template " style="white-space:nowrap;">[<i>[[Wikipedia:Verifiability|<span title="The material near this tag failed verification of its source citation(s).">failed verification</span>]]</i>]</sup> 66% said the Palestinians’ real goal should be to start with a two-state solution but then move to it all being one Palestinian state.<sup class="noprint Inline-Template Template-Fact" style="white-space:nowrap;">[<i>[[Wikipedia:Citation needed|<span title="This claim needs references to reliable sources.">citation needed</span>]]</i>]</sup>

Throat0390 (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

URL fixed, not sure how the url for a different article got there but should be the right article now. That article does cover all the info mentioned in the paragraph Cannolis (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

References

Misleading citation

Wiki: "A Palestinian poll in September 2024 revealed that only 10% of respondents supported a single state that would provide equal rights for both Israelis and Palestinians."

Source: "A Palestinian poll in September put support for a state based on the borders of 1967 at 60%, compared with 10% who backed a single state with equal rights for Jews and Palestinians." ~2026-41921-23 (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Maybe I’m being dense, but what is misleading about this? If you’re able to formulate your request as a proper edit request per WP:ARBPIA, we might be able to action it. Yr Enw (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

A Land for All

A Land for All is described here as a one-state proposal. However it was presented at a 2025 UN High-Level Conference as a promising way to implement the two-state solution. Since it was presented at a UN conference, it does not fit here, since according to this article "the one-state solution has remained outside the range of official diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict."

In essence the proposal mirrors the structure of the European Union, with two sovereign states that agree to allow free travel and gradually allow residency rights to each other's citizens. Some issues that affect both states -- water, external security, human rights -- would be governed jointly by agreement.

I think that this description should be shifted to the Two-state solution. Pamela Miller (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I think you are probably right. Hardal's view on the matter was clear in the Ezra Klein show last month - "we already have a one-state reality...under one regime and one power, which is the Israeli one. And the Palestinians live under daily domination and occupation and military control and apartheid...We are speaking about gradually opening the borders between Israel and Palestine as two states". Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2026 (UTC)