The two-state solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict envisions an independent State of Palestine alongside the State of Israel, west of the Jordan River. The boundary between the two states is still subject to dispute and negotiation, but it is mainly based on the 1967 lines.
The one-state solution is a proposed approach to resolving the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, according to which one state must be established between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean. Proponents of this solution advocate a single state in Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
The term one-state reality describes the belief that the current situation in Israel/Palestine is de facto one-state. It is sometimes also called a bi-national state, owing to the hope that the state would be a homeland for both Jews and Palestinians.
*Borders may vary, but if two distinct nation states will be in existence will resolve as 1 - If one of the two current nation states won't survive as a recognised entity the market will resolve as 2 or 3. If none of the current nations will exist, resolves 4.
Related questions
@MartinRandall It's a 1.4% of ethnic cleansing and another hoocaust
@Lorxus That would clearly be a "One State: Israel" solution, except that such a solution would be too extreme for the other nations in the area to tolerate (even relatively moderate ones such as Egypt), so a multi-national war would certainly ensue (with a high likelihood that Israel would not receive support from the US) and could end up resulting in a single Palestinian State or No State.
That possibility seems extremely unlikely to me. Israel might attempt occupy Gaza like they did before 2005, but attempting to annex would be unpopular even in Israel and not be worthwhile for anybody involved.
@DanielParker I don't think that I have quite as much faith as you do in the international order - most of which is currently doing low-boiling genocides of one kind or another (and sure have done) - to come costfully stop a genocide, or as much faith as you do in the nations of the Middle East - famously fractious, often individually authoritarian, and with a disadvantage in hardware, military doctrine, and a few coalitional military losses against the state of Israel already on the board - to be able to come together and agree to stop Israel on behalf of a people that they have already largely abandoned to its fate.
But you do you!
@Lorxus The Arabs spent the last 75 years trying to murder and expel every single Jew from Israel. But hey, Israel is the genocidal one!
@AlexCao This month Arabs in Jordan shot down drones targeting Israel, which were launched by Arabs in Iran.
@MartinRandall Iran isn't "arabs". This makes situation even more grotesque. Jordanians are basically palestinians. So, this month "palestinians in Jordan shot down drones targeting Israel, which were launched by persians in Iran".
@MartinRandall of course many Arabs have learned to make peace(as human beings should do) in the past 75 years. But there is still a substantial portion that latch on to their genocidal agenda against Jews
@DanielParker "an invasion of Israel by all the neighboring states with no US support" - that's not new, we've already had three of those.
@Lorxus under this hypothesis does Israel also expel the millions of arab-israeli citizens? (And also I guess it would have to actually start this imaginary "genocide" you think is happening).
The United Nations' Convention on Genocide, 1948, defines genocide as any act that aims to destroy a national, racial, ethnic, or religious group in whole or in part.
It is not a defense against the allegation of genocide made by South Africa, for Israel to point out that they are not expelling Arab-Israeli citizens. That case is still ongoing.
International Law is set up like this based on the historical precedent of the Holocaust, which did not proceed evenly throughout all territories occupied by Nazi Germany.
@MartinRandall when you're appealing to ridiculously broad dictionary definitions like this you've long since lost both the argument and the plot. Urban warfare against an invader (and one with unusually low civilian casualty ratios) isn't genocide by any same definition (unless you really want to hate Israel in particular for some reason, but why would anyone want to do that? It's not like there's any history of people irrationally picking on Jews, that'd be crazy).
@ShakedKoplewitz I don't think @MartinRandall was necessarily accusing Israel of committing genocide, just pointing out that "Israeli Arabs have rights" is not actually a strong defense against the genocide allegation. There are much stronger defenses available. Such as the fact that the death toll is only 30,000 and Israel's policy and actions have shown time and time again that it's after Hamas and not the civilians, and civilians are dying because Hamas embeds itself in civilian populations.
Would this count as "One State: Israel" or "Any other solution" if Israel fully annexes the West Bank and Egypt fully annexes Gaza?
@DanielParker If one state named Israel and one state named Palestine still exist it will resolve as 1
How would three states resolve? Israel, Gaza, West Bank?
@Quadrifold Ahhhh to me the last option means a more than two state solution, not that neither Israel or Palestine are used anywhere in the area. Just me?
@nathanwei no, N/A just means everyone gets their money back so these should be interpreted as relative odds conditional on one of them happening.