In 1937, the Peel Commission suggested a partition of what was then British Mandatory Palestine into two states: one for the Jews, and one for the Arabs. It was accepted by the Jews, but not by the Arabs who refused to accept the existence of even a small Jewish state. This established an important historical pattern: the consistent willingness of the Jewish leadership to compromise on territory in exchange for sovereignty, and the repeated rejection of such compromises by Arab leadership.[1]
In 1947, partition into two states was again proposed by the UN Special Committee on Palestine. Resolution 181 was passed by the UN General Assembly, which authorized the establishment of a Jewish state. Israel was established, but the Palestinian state was not, again, because they refused to accept a Jewish state as its neighbour in the Middle East. The 1947 partition plan would have created an Arab state on 43% of the land and a Jewish state on 56%, with Jerusalem under international control. Despite being offered far less territory than they had hoped for, Jewish leaders accepted this plan as a pragmatic step toward establishing their homeland, while Arab leaders rejected it outright and launched a war to prevent Israel’s creation.[2]
In the 1990s, the Oslo Accords led to the recognition of the PLO as the representative body of the Palestinians. The Oslo Accords led to the Road Map for Peace which led to the Annapolis Conference, which has led to Israeli Prime Ministers endorsing a two-state solution that would see a Palestinian state created alongside Israel. It is the only way for a Jewish, democratic state to exist alongside a Palestinian state. At Camp David in 2000 and Taba in 2001, Israel offered the Palestinians a state on approximately 95% of the West Bank and all of Gaza, with East Jerusalem as its capital, yet these offers were rejected without counterproposals. Similarly, in 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert presented an even more generous offer that was also declined.[3]
A call for a one-state solution is a call for the dissolution of the Jewish State of Israel and replacing it with a majority-Arab state in which Jews would no longer be able to exercise self-determination. A two-state solution is thus the only viable solution for a peaceful future to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Demographic projections indicate that a single state encompassing Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza would either cease to be Jewish (if democratic) or cease to be democratic (if maintained as a Jewish state). This explains why advocates of a one-state solution often use it as a euphemism for eliminating Israel’s Jewish character, a position that denies the Jewish people their internationally recognized right to self-determination.[4]
Understanding the distinction between these two approaches is crucial for recognizing antisemitic rhetoric that masquerades as political critique. When slogans like “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” are chanted, they’re not advocating for peaceful coexistence in two states, but rather for a single state that would end Israel’s existence as the world’s only Jewish state. This denial of Jewish self-determination, while supporting it for other peoples, constitutes a double standard that the IHRA working definition identifies as a form of antisemitism.[5]
Sources
[1] Benny Morris, “Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-1998,” 2001. This definitive historical work documents the Peel Commission negotiations and the pattern of Jewish acceptance versus Arab rejection of partition plans.
[2] United Nations, “Resolution 181 (II): Future Government of Palestine,” November 29, 1947. This resolution detailed the partition plan’s territorial allocations and was accepted by Jewish representatives but rejected by Arab leadership.
[3] Dennis Ross, “The Missing Peace: The Inside Story of the Fight for Middle East Peace,” 2005. Ross, the chief American negotiator, provides firsthand accounts of the Camp David and Taba negotiations, including the specific offers made and rejected.
[4] Israel Central Bureau of Statistics and Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, “Demographic Projections, 2020-2050,” 2020. These official demographic analyses demonstrate the population trends that would impact a single-state arrangement.
[5] International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, “Working Definition of Antisemitism,” 2016. The IHRA definition specifically identifies “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination” as an example of antisemitism.