What are the pros and cons of a one-state solution in the Arab-Israeli conflict?

Answer 1

There are several different one state proposals, ranging from the "One Jewish State" proposal to the "One Arab State" proposal. The intermediate proposal (and the most common one entertained) is the Bi-National State organized along a confessionalist model.

Definition of Confessionalism:
Confessionalism is a political system where individuals in a society have different political rights because of which religious community they ascribe to. Unlike the West, in the Middle East, you inherit a religious community regardless of whether you believe or not; it is almost the equivalent of the ethnicity. This is a form of binationalism. The most common example given is Lebanon, where the President must be a Maronite Christian, the Prime Minister must be a Sunni Muslim, and the Speaker of the Parliament must be a Shiite Muslim. The Parliament itself must also be divided 50-50 between Muslims and Christians.

"Isratine" as a Confessionalist State
If the populations of Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank were added together, you would have 6.0 million Jews and 6.1 million Arab Muslims and 300,000 or so other minorities. Additionally, since the Arab Muslim population growth rates are higher than those of Jews in aggregate, the Muslim population would grow higher and higher over time and Jews would never constitute a majority. The Isratinian government would likely be derived from the Israeli government which is stable and effective in governance. The President/Prime Minister relationship would probably become more balanced (à la Turkey or à la Lebanon) and the President would be required to be a Jew while the Prime Minister would be required to be a Muslim. The Parliament would probably be divided evenly between Jews and Muslims with a few remaining seats allocated for Druze, Christians, and other religious minorities. Proponents say that this type of plan is good because it allows for demographic changes to leave the fabric of Isratine intact. It would also require the interaction of the various communities on a much higher level than full independence would allow.

CRITICISMS

Lack of Pluralism in the Middle East (primarily a Jewish argument)
Most people who advocate confessionalism use Lebanon as a blueprint, since, in 1920, the division between Christians and Arab Muslims in Lebanon was roughly the same as would be between Jews and Arab Muslims currently over the entirety of former Mandatory Palestine. The differing parties created a confessionalist system of governance and tried to live together. Unfortunately, Lebanon demonstrates the failure of the confessionalist system. Muslims in the Middle East tend to hate or think less of Non-Muslims. Over the course of the 1920s-1960s, as the Muslim population rose, they became more and more violent towards the Christian population, leading to a mass exodus of Christians from Lebanon who were afraid for their lives and property. In 1975, the situation had deteriorated so badly that the country broke out in a civil war that raged for 16 years and resulted in several changes to the confessionalist system that further emboldened the Muslim majority. Christians in Lebanon are being treated increasingly as second-class citizens and a large percentage of Lebanese emigrants are Christians. In fact, the issue is so sensitive that there has been no official census in Lebanon since the 1930s because it would further embolden Muslims to take away rights from the shrinking Christian minority.

And then realize that Judenhass (Jew-hatred) in the Arab Muslim world (and Palestine in particular) is orders of magnitude greater than hatred for Christians. The situation could only be worse for Isratine. If liberalism existed in the Middle East, there could be promise for a multi-ethnic pluralistic country, but such does not exist. The majority of Palestinians polled have consistently held that under any Isratine-type solution that all European Jews would be required to emigrate from Isratine to their "home countries" even though the majority of them were born in Israel. Unlike the Lebanese case, where there was sporadic violence that led to flight, but was not perpetrated in order to cause flight, this sets up a mechanism for pogroms against the Jews in the Isratine state, i.e. in order to force Jews to feel unsafe and to return to their "countries of origin".

Defeats the Purpose of Israel (primarily a Jewish argument)
Israel was developed to be a center of Jewish culture and civilization as a rebirth of the historic Jewish cultures and civilizations that used to exist there. It was also designed to be a refuge for Jews fleeing persecution elsewhere in the world. Israel has already accepted Jewish refugees from dozens of countries under its Jewish Right of Return. In addition to the violence that would be visited on the Jewish community (as described in Lack of Pluralism), it is quite likely that the Isratinian government would end the Right of Return and limit its support of Jewish culture, depriving Israel of its inherent purpose for many of its citizens.

Economic Disenfranchisment (primarily a Muslim argument)
Since most of the wealthy and economically affluent individuals in what would become Isratine would be Jewish and confessionalist systems reward in-group favoritism, it is likely that the Isratinian economic elite would be almost exclusively Jewish, leading to Muslim economic disenfranchisement. Historically, a similar issue arose in Lebanon and in Turkey when those countries had large Non-Muslim minorities who were relatively economically powerful and, through in-group favoritism, prevented Muslims from improving their economic position.

Alteration of the Blood Pact (primarily a Druze and Bedouin argument)
The Druze and Bedouins made a number of pacts with the early Zionists, even before the State of Israel came into existence, because the Zionists, unlike the future Palestinians, treated them as equals, not inferiors. The Zionists additionally offerred concrete benefits to these minorities. In the case of the Druze, it was the repatriation of their holiest site: Nabi Shuayb from exclusivist Muslim control. In the case of the Bedouins, it was access to water and education. These groups have proudly fought alongside the Jews of Israel in defense of Zionism and lost many thousands of souls in defense of the state. The alteration of the state in a significant way would, to them, invalidate the sacrifice on behalf of the state. Additionally, because they are Arabs they will likely face additional backlash from the Palestinian Muslims for appearing to be traitors or appeasors.

Prevents the Creation of Truly National Identity (primarily a Liberal argument)
The creation of a confessionalist state requires individuals to have a loyalty primarily to their group and not to the nation overall. Admittedly, this is currently a problem in Israel, where the Israeli Supreme Court recently ruled that there is no "Israeli identity", a person is either Jewish or Arab. A confessionalist state will only intensify the problem.

Requires Atheists to Define Themselves by Faith (primarily an Atheist argument)
This is straightforward. In order for an Atheist to be represented in a confessionalist system, the Atheist has to define himself as a member of a faith community, which may strike him as disengenuous, since he does not actually believe the tenets of that faith.