Editing One-state solution (section)

====Journalists====
One major argument against the one-state solution is that it would endanger the safety of the Jewish minority, because it would require assimilation with what critics fear would be an extremely hostile Muslim ruling majority.<ref name=reut2004/> In particular, [[Jeffrey Goldberg]] points to a 2000 ''[[Haaretz]]'' interview with [[Edward Said]], whom he describes as "one of the intellectual fathers of one-statism". When asked whether he thought a Jewish minority would be treated fairly in a binational state, Said replied that "it worries me a great deal. The question of what is going to be the fate of the Jews is very difficult for me. I really don't know."<ref name=Goldberg/>

Imagining what might ensue with unification, some critics<ref>{{cite web |title=A Destructive "Solution" |work=Harvard Political Review |date=28 February 2012 |url=http://hpronline.org/harvard/a-destructive-solution/ |access-date=12 April 2016 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20120303090836/http://hpronline.org/harvard/a-destructive-solution/ |archive-date=3 March 2012 |url-status=dead}}</ref> of the one-state model believe that rather than ending the Arab–Israeli conflict, it would result in large-scale ethnic violence and possibly civil war, pointing to violence during the British Mandate period, such as in [[1920 Nebi Musa riots|1920]], [[Jaffa riots|1921]], [[1929 Palestine riots|1929]], and [[1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine|1936–39]] as examples. In this view, violence between Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews is inevitable and can only be forestalled by partition. These critics also cite the 1937 [[Peel Commission]], which recommended partition as the only means of ending the conflict.<ref>{{cite news|title=Partition of Palestine|work=The Guardian|date=8 July 1937 |location=London |url= https://www.theguardian.com/israel/Story/0,,980135,00.html |access-date=5 May 2010}}</ref>{{original research inline|date=March 2022}} Critics also cite bi-national arrangements in [[Yugoslavia]], [[Lebanon]], [[Bosnia and Herzegovina|Bosnia]], [[Cyprus]], and [[Pakistan]], which failed and resulted in further internal conflicts. Similar criticisms appear in ''The Case for Peace''.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Dershowitz |first=Alan Morton |author-link=Alan Dershowitz |date=2006-04-01 |title=The case for peace: how the Arab-Israeli conflict can be resolved |journal=Choice Reviews Online |volume=43 |issue=8 |pages=43–4915–43-4915 |doi=10.5860/choice.43-4915 |doi-broken-date=1 February 2025 |issn=0009-4978}}</ref>

Left-wing Israeli journalist [[Amos Elon]] argued that while Israel's settlement policy was pushing things in the direction of a one-state solution, should it ever come to pass, "the end result is more likely to resemble [[Zimbabwe]] than post-apartheid South Africa".<ref>{{cite magazine |title= An Alternative Future: An Exchange by Amos Elon |magazine=The New York Review of Books |date=4 December 2003 |last1=Bartov |first1=Omer |last2=Walzer |first2=Michael |last3=Foxman |first3=Abraham H. |last4=Judt |first4=Tony |last5=Elon |first5=Amos |url= http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2003/dec/04/an-alternative-future-an-exchange/?pagination=false|access-date=2016-04-12}}</ref> Echoing these sentiments, Palestinian-American journalist [[Ray Hanania]] wrote that the idea of a single state where Jews, Muslims, and Christians can live side by side is "fundamentally flawed." In addition to the fact that Israel would not support it, Hanania noted that the Arab and Muslim world don't practice it, writing "Exactly where do Jews and Christians live in the Islamic World today side-by-side with equality? We don't even live side-by-side with equality in the Palestinian Diaspora."<ref>{{Cite news |last= Hanania |first=Ray |title=One-state solution a pipedream |date= 19 November 2006 |website= Ynetnews |url= https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3329865,00.html}}</ref>

On the aftermath of any hypothetical implementation of a one-state solution, [[Gershom Gorenberg]] wrote: "Palestinians will demand the return of property lost in 1948 and perhaps the rebuilding of destroyed villages. Except for the drawing of borders, virtually every question that bedevils Israeli–Palestinian peace negotiations will become a domestic problem setting the new political entity aflame.... Two nationalities who have desperately sought a political frame for cultural and social independence would wrestle over control of language, art, street names, and schools." Gorenberg wrote that in the best case, the new state would be paralyzed by endless arguments, and in the worst case, constant disagreements would erupt into violence.<ref name=Goldberg/>

Gorenberg wrote that in addition to many of the problems with the one-state solution described above, the hypothetical state would collapse economically, as the Israeli Jewish intelligentsia would in all likelihood emigrate, writing that "financing development in majority-Palestinian areas and bringing Palestinians into Israel's social welfare network would require Jews to pay higher taxes or receive fewer services. But the engine of the Israeli economy is high-tech, an entirely portable industry. Both individuals and companies will leave." As a result, the new binational state would be financially crippled.<ref name="Goldberg">{{Cite news |last=Goldberg |first=Jeffrey |date=2012-02-28 |title=Anti-Israel One-State Plan Gets Harvard Outlet: Jeffrey Goldberg |language=en |work=Bloomberg.com |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2012-02-28/anti-israel-one-state-fix-airs-at-harvard-commentary-by-jeffrey-goldberg |access-date=2023-05-21}}</ref>