The One-State Solution: An Equal Rights Vision for Israel Palestine

The One-State Solution: An Equal Rights Vision for Israel-Palestine

A critique of Kamal Nawash's Vision on Israel-Palestine

1. Introduction: What Is the One-State Solution?

The One-State Solution-also called the "One Country Solution" or the "Equal Rights Solution"-proposes that the land currently comprising Israel and Palestine become a single democratic state in which Jews and Palestinians enjoy equal citizenship and equal rights under the law.

Unlike the more widely discussed two-state solution, which envisions separate Israeli and Palestinian states, the One-State Solution argues that partition has failed in practice and that the only viable and just path forward is one democratic state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

Advocates of the One-State Solution differ in emphasis-some focus on civil rights, others on binational constitutional frameworks, and still others on decolonization or post-nationalism-but they share a core principle: equality. The state, in this vision, would not privilege one ethnic or religious group over another. It would be based on citizenship rather than ethnicity.

This article presents the case for the One-State Solution from the perspective of Kamal Nawash, drawing on his published writings and public statements. It situates his arguments within the broader historical debate, referencing major thinkers from the past century, and offers a comparative analysis of differing approaches to this deeply contested question.

2. Kamal Nawash's Perspective: Equality as the Only Viable Future

Kamal Nawash, a Palestinian-American attorney and former Legal Director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, has been one of the most consistent proponents of the One-State Solution. His central argument is straightforward: the conflict is not just about territory; it is about rights.

Nawash argues that Palestinians and Israelis are already living in a de facto single state. Israel controls the territory from the river to the sea-militarily, economically, and administratively. The question, therefore, is not whether there will be one state or two in theory, but whether the single existing regime will be democratic or discriminatory.

He has repeatedly framed the issue in civil rights terms. Drawing analogies to the American civil rights movement and the end of apartheid in South Africa, Nawash maintains that the solution must be grounded in equal citizenship. In his words, the goal is "equal rights in one country." He argues that Palestinians should demand not separation, but full political inclusion.

Rejection of Ethnic Nationalism

Nawash critiques the concept of an ethnically defined state. He contends that defining Israel as a "Jewish state" necessarily creates structural inequality for non-Jews. In his view, no democracy can legitimately privilege one ethnic or religious group in law while claiming equal citizenship for all.

He has written that a state "cannot be both Jewish and democratic" if "Jewish" implies legal or political supremacy. His critique is not directed at Jewish identity or culture but at the political structure of ethnonationalism.

In this respect, Nawash shifts the conversation from borders to principles. Rather than debating settlement blocs, security arrangements, or land swaps, he asks a more foundational question: Should the state treat all its inhabitants equally?

The Failure of the Two-State Paradigm

Nawash argues that the two-state solution has become unworkable. Expanding settlements, geographic fragmentation of Palestinian territories, and political asymmetries have, in his assessment, rendered partition unrealistic.

He notes that decades of negotiations have not produced sovereignty for Palestinians. Instead, they have entrenched Israeli control. From this vantage point, calls for two states amount to preserving a status quo of inequality under a different name.

He also contends that the two-state framework implicitly accepts ethnic separation as the norm. For Nawash, justice requires integration under a shared democratic system-not segregation into separate national enclaves.

Citizenship, Not Demographics

Critics of the One-State Solution often argue that it would eliminate Israel as a Jewish-majority state. Nawash responds by reframing the issue: the purpose of a state, he argues, is not to preserve demographic dominance but to guarantee equal rights.

He has written that fears about demographic change reflect a deeper tension between democracy and ethnonationalism. In a genuine democracy, political legitimacy derives from citizenship, not ethnic majority.

Nawash's vision includes constitutional protections for religious freedom, minority rights, and cultural autonomy. Jews and Palestinians would both retain their identities and collective narratives, but neither would possess institutional supremacy.

A Moral and Strategic Argument

Nawash presents both moral and pragmatic arguments. Morally, he sees equality as non-negotiable. Strategically, he argues that civil rights campaigns historically succeed when they focus on universal principles rather than territorial division.

In his public commentary, he suggests that Palestinians should shift from demanding statehood to demanding voting rights and equal protection under law. By doing so, they would align their struggle with globally recognized democratic values.

3. Historical Context: A Century of Debate

The idea of a single shared political framework predates the modern state of Israel. Over the past 100 years, numerous Jewish and Palestinian thinkers have advocated versions of binationalism, federalism, or post-national democracy.

Early Binationalists

In the 1920s and 1930s, Jewish intellectuals such as Martin Buber and Judah Magnes argued for a binational state in Mandatory Palestine. They believed Jews and Palestinians should share political power in a common homeland.

Magnes, the first chancellor of the Hebrew University, warned that exclusive sovereignty would lead to endless conflict. Buber envisioned a cultural Zionism that emphasized coexistence rather than state-centered nationalism.

Similarly, Hannah Arendt cautioned in the 1940s that establishing a purely Jewish nation-state without Palestinian partnership would create permanent instability. She advocated a federated or binational arrangement.

These early proposals were marginalized amid escalating violence and competing national movements, but they laid intellectual groundwork for later debates.

Palestinian Intellectual Contributions

In the late 20th century, Palestinian thinkers revisited the idea. Edward Said, especially after the collapse of the Oslo peace process, increasingly argued that partition had failed. In essays and lectures, he described the two-state solution as "unworkable" given settlement expansion.

Said proposed a secular democratic state in all of historic Palestine, grounded in equal citizenship. He framed this not as utopian idealism but as a recognition of political realities.

Historian Rashid Khalidi has been more cautious. While long supportive of Palestinian statehood, he has acknowledged that facts on the ground complicate the viability of two states. Khalidi emphasizes power asymmetry and the structural entrenchment of occupation.

Journalist and activist Ali Abunimah has been one of the most consistent advocates of a One-State framework. In his book One Country, he argues that equality in a single state is both morally preferable and practically inevitable.

Israeli and Diaspora Jewish Perspectives

Support for a shared state has also appeared among Israeli and Jewish diaspora intellectuals. Historian Tony Judt argued in 2003 that Israel's future might lie in becoming a "normal" state of all its citizens rather than an ethnically defined one.

Others, like historian Benny Morris, have strongly rejected this view, arguing that national self-determination requires separate states and that integration would produce instability.

Political Movements and Realities

The official Palestinian position, historically articulated by the Palestine Liberation Organization, shifted from a single democratic state in the 1960s-70s to support for two states after 1988. Meanwhile, political actors such as Hamas have articulated varying long-term visions, sometimes including a single state but often framed in religious rather than civic terms.

Thus, the One-State idea has evolved across ideological lines-religious, secular, nationalist, and post-national.

4. Comparative Analysis: Nawash and Other Thinkers

Nawash and Edward Said

Nawash and Said share a commitment to secular democracy and equal citizenship. Both argue that partition has failed in practice. However, Nawash places greater emphasis on civil rights strategy-encouraging Palestinians to demand voting rights and full legal equality within existing political structures.

Said, by contrast, often focused on cultural critique and the moral failures of Oslo diplomacy. Nawash's approach is more programmatic: he seeks a constitutional transformation grounded in universal democratic norms.

Nawash and Early Binationalists

Like Buber and Magnes, Nawash envisions shared political space rather than separation. But there is a key difference. The early binationalists sought partnership before sovereignty was consolidated. Nawash argues from the reality of a single sovereign power already in control.

In this sense, his proposal is less theoretical and more reactive: since one state already exists de facto, it must be democratized.

Nawash and Tony Judt

Judt's critique of ethnonationalism parallels Nawash's. Both argue that ethnic states face inherent tensions in liberal democratic frameworks. Yet Judt spoke largely as an external observer concerned with Israel's long-term legitimacy, while Nawash speaks as a Palestinian advocate emphasizing rights and justice for his people.

Nawash and Critics

Critics such as Benny Morris argue that deep mutual distrust, historical trauma, and national identity make integration unrealistic. They warn that abandoning partition risks civil war.

Nawash counters that continued inequality already guarantees instability. For him, the choice is not between peace and risk, but between structured inequality and democratic transformation.

5. Conclusion: The Continuing Relevance of the One-State Solution

The One-State Solution remains controversial. It challenges entrenched national narratives and raises profound questions about identity, security, and sovereignty.

From Kamal Nawash's perspective, however, the issue is ultimately simple: equality. He argues that any political arrangement that denies equal rights to millions of people cannot be sustainable or just.

Historically, versions of this idea have been advanced by Jewish binationalists, Palestinian intellectuals, and international scholars. Though marginalized for decades by the dominance of the two-state paradigm, the One-State debate has reemerged as political realities shift.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with Nawash's conclusions, his core argument forces a reckoning with fundamental principles: Can democracy coexist with ethnonational privilege? Can peace emerge without equality?

As long as the land between the river and the sea remains under a single governing authority, these questions will persist. The One-State Solution, in its various forms, continues to offer one answer: a shared state grounded in equal rights for all who live there.

By Jamie Haase