Security Studies Program Seminar

Israel, the Palestinians, and the One State Agenda

Hussein Ibish
Senior Fellow at the American Task Force on Palestine (ATFP)

February 10, 2010

 

Background

History of the The One-State Agenda

 

Ibish’s Key Questions for the One-State Agenda

Ibish poses six important questions not asked or addressed by most supporters of the one-state agenda, which he feels they cannot effectively answer.

  1. If the occupation cannot be ended, as one-state supporters claim, when did the tipping point occur, since presumably they believed it could have been ended at some point? If Israel will not agree to end the occupation, what is the logic in thinking that Israel might dissolve itself via the one-state solution? If Israel cannot be compelled to give up/share 22% of the land under its control, how can you convince them to do so with 100% of it?
  2. Shouldn’t Jewish Israelis be a key/primary audience for the one-state agenda, since they make up half of its potential constituency (currently the more powerful one at that)?
  3. What efforts have one-state supporters made to reach out to Israelis and say what is in the one-state solution for them? (Ibish believes that they have made no such efforts.)
  4. What do one-state advocates propose to do to transcend Palestinian national identity/ambitions? Why has no major Palestinian political party subscribed to the bi-national one-state idea?
  5. Apart from empty slogans like “boycott until justice,” how do one-state advocates propose to advance their vision and make it reality?
  6. Since they reject both the project of ending the occupation and the state and institution building program of the Palestinian Authority (PA), what do one-state advocates offer to those living under occupation other than decades of suffering and claims of solidarity?

Ibish’s Argument for a Two-State Solution

Rapporteur: Peter Krause


back to Wednesday Seminar Series, Spring 2010