The Israeli-Palestinian conflict stands as one of modern history’s most enduring crises. Rooted in the upheaval of 1948, perpetuated by cycles of violence and dispossession, and compounded by global inaction, this conflict has eluded resolution. The two-state solution, long championed as the pathway to peace, has now faded into obsolescence. A growing chorus of voices, including prominent Palestinian intellectual Omar Barghouti, is advocating for a radical reimagining: a one-state solution.
It is imperative to understand why the two-state framework has failed, to critically examine Zionism as a structural impediment, and to explore the transformative potential of a unified state founded on justice and equality.
The decline of the two-state dream
The two-state solution once embodied the international community’s aspirations for peace. Yet its foundation was flawed. Israel’s relentless settlement expansion has fragmented Palestinian territories, rendering geographic continuity impossible. Politically, divisions between Hamas and Fatah have weakened Palestinian representation, while Israel’s economic stranglehold fosters dependency.
Global actors have compounded the issue. The United States and European Union, ostensibly committed to a two-state solution, have failed to exert meaningful pressure on Israel. Instead, their acquiescence has emboldened policies of annexation and apartheid, deepening Palestinian disenfranchisement. The Oslo Accords, hailed as a diplomatic breakthrough, prioritised stability over justice, perpetuating structural inequalities that have hardened over time.
Also read: Four Reasons to Be Concerned About the Israel-Hezbollah Deal
Omar Barghouti’s vision of one state
Omar Barghouti, a leading voice for Palestinian liberation, envisions a single, democratic state encompassing historic Palestine. This model guarantees equal rights and representation for all inhabitants, regardless of ethnicity or religion. Barghouti’s framework seeks to rectify injustices stemming from the Nakba, including the right of return for Palestinian refugees, while dismantling Zionism’s exclusionary underpinnings. critiques of Zionism as a structural impediment.
Barghouti argues that Zionism, by privileging Jewish identity over others within the state, inherently perpetuates systemic discrimination and exclusion, making it incompatible with universal democratic principles. His proposal challenges the status quo, urging a reimagining of statehood and identity to pave the way for a future grounded in equity, inclusion and shared humanity.
Central to this vision is the idea that equality, not separation, is the pathway to peace. Barghouti and others contend that Zionism, as a nationalist ideology privileging Jewish identity, has institutionalised discrimination. A one-state solution, by decolonising this framework, offers a chance for reconciliation rooted in justice.
Edward Said, an early proponent of the one-state solution, captured its ethical essence: “The question is not whether Palestinians and Israelis can live together, but whether they can build a society that transcends the logic of domination.”
Barriers to one-state reality
The transition to a one-state solution faces significant resistance. Many Israelis view it as a demographic threat to the Jewish character of the state, while Palestinians remain sceptical of Israeli intentions. Decades of mutual distrust, fuelled by violence and dispossession, have entrenched psychological and political barriers.
Moreover, the asymmetry of power complicates matters. Israel’s military, economic, and diplomatic superiority necessitates international intervention to dismantle apartheid policies and ensure equitable coexistence. Without external pressure, the existing status quo of domination and exclusion will persist.
Comparing models: One state vs. two
The one-state solution represents a shift from partition to integration. Unlike the two-state model — which perpetuates the binary of nation-states — Barghouti’s vision emphasises equal citizenship. This approach draws inspiration from post-apartheid South Africa, where justice was prioritised over territorial division.
Critics argue that a unified state would erase Jewish self-determination and fuel sectarian tensions. Yet advocates counter that a secular democracy, grounded in universal rights, would provide equal protections for all. The challenge lies in overcoming entrenched narratives of fear and mistrust.
Federalism: An alternative framework
India’s historical stance on Palestine offers a unique perspective. In 1947, India opposed the partition plan, favouring a federated state that safeguarded Arab and Jewish rights. This approach, reminiscent of India’s own federal structure, underscores the potential for coexistence within a shared political framework.
A binational model, blending autonomy with integration, could balance collective identities while preserving individual rights. However, such a structure risks devolving into a battleground for competing nationalisms if not underpinned by robust institutional safeguards.
Towards a shared future
As the viability of a two-state solution fades into history, the discourse on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must evolve. Reimagining a just future through a one-state lens demands bold political imagination and unflinching engagement with three potential models for coexistence. Each offers unique pathways for achieving equity and reconciliation while reflecting the deep challenges of reengineering a landscape marked by entrenched divisions.
As debates intensify, three potential frameworks emerge, each offering distinct pathways to justice and reconciliation:
Reimagining coexistence: Three models for a just future
As the two-state solution recedes into obsolescence, a pressing need emerges to rethink the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through innovative frameworks. Three models of coexistence — rooted in equity, shared governance, and reconciliation — offer pathways to reimagine the future while addressing the entrenched divides of the present.
One-Person, One-Vote: Equality as foundation
The “One-Person, One-Vote” model champions universal democratic values, envisioning a single, unified state where all citizens — irrespective of ethnicity, religion, or nationality — enjoy equal rights. This approach seeks to dismantle the structures of inequality and prioritise civic equality over ethno-nationalism, promising to redress the systemic injustices of the past.
Yet, this vision faces profound resistance. For many Israelis, it threatens the Jewish identity of the state; for Palestinians, it raises fears of cultural erasure. Historical parallels reveal that while such egalitarian systems are ethically compelling, they demand societal trust and political maturity that remain elusive in the region.
Binational or federal state: Balancing identities
A binational or federal model offers a compromise, preserving the distinct national aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians within a shared political framework. By granting autonomy to each community while institutionalising coexistence, this approach acknowledges collective identities alongside individual rights.
However, the model is fraught with fragility. Palestinians must grapple with diminished sovereignty, while Israelis must forgo exclusive control. The delicate balance of autonomy and unity risks devolving into nationalist strife, as seen in other divided societies. Nevertheless, this approach offers a pragmatic pathway to coexistence, mitigating the binary of winner and loser inherent in past negotiations.
Shared sovereignty model: A collaborative vision
The most ambitious proposal, shared sovereignty model, imagines Israelis and Palestinians jointly managing critical resources and shared spaces, such as Jerusalem. By blending cooperation with sovereignty, this model aims to redefine statehood itself, fostering interdependence rather than division.
Also read: ICC Issues Arrest Warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, Former Defence Minister Gallant
The potential for reconciliation is immense — shared governance could transform contested sites into symbols of unity. Yet, the model’s success hinges on unprecedented trust, robust institutions, and external guarantees to mediate disputes. The asymmetry of power between the two parties adds complexity, demanding nuanced and sustained efforts to ensure fairness.
A comprehensive approach for the future
These models — each with its merits and challenges — underscore the need for creative thinking in resolving one of the world’s most intractable conflicts. The current de facto one-state reality, characterised by domination and exclusion, is unsustainable and morally indefensible.
International actors and mediators must pivot from the now-defunct two-state framework and engage with these alternatives as a starting point for dialogue. Rather than imposing solutions, the focus must be on fostering inclusive, grassroots-led discussions that prioritise justice, equity, and coexistence.
The one-state solution is no silver bullet. It requires political courage, the dismantling of zero-sum ideologies, and the will to address historic grievances head-on. But as history demonstrates, transformative change is often born from crises. By embracing bold ideas and fostering collaboration, the Israeli and Palestinian peoples might yet chart a course toward a future that is both just and sustainable.
Debashis Chakrabarti is a political commentator and Commonwealth Fellow in the UK. A former professor and dean at Assam University, he has taught across the UK, the Middle East and Africa.
