By Letter to the Editor on March 27, 2020.
Re: Gwynne Dyer: “Bibi, Benny, Ruvi and Israel’s future” (March 14 Herald, Page A6)
While there’s a virtual consensus for a two-state solution to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Dyer’s advocating for the “one-state solution” is being insidiously sold in the language of peace.
So why then is the one-state or bi-national solution unacceptable? At its most basic level, the one-state solution denies the right of Jews to self-determination in their historical homeland and calls into question the very legitimacy of Israel as a state. A bi-national state would have the same consequence as the “right of return” – the negation of Israel as a Jewish state. Palestinians, by virtue of a higher birthrate, would turn Jews into a minority before voting in favour of another Muslim Arab state in place of Israel.
The one-state solution is therefore a thinly veiled strategy for destroying the state of Israel and questioning its very right to exist.
That doesn’t seem like a solution to me.
Executive Director, HonestReporting Canada