A one-state solution solves border issues in Israel Palestine

The argument

At the heart of the Israeli-Palestine conflict is a territorial dispute. Who has a claim to the Holy Land? How should land be divided when two opponents lay equal claim? A one-state solution, if done correctly, could solve the long-lasting territorial disputes in the region. The four main geographic regions of importance to a one-state solution are the units of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza and within these regions, the city of Jerusalem. From these geographic regions, there is a set of territorial disputes that emerge. The border between Israel and Gaza has been a fiercely contested region given the rise of Palestinian nationalism in Gaza and the corresponding security concerns in Israel. The West Bank, with the exception of East Jerusalem, has not been annexed by Israel although there has long been a fear that the annexation of the West Bank could spur a Palestinian uprising in the region and perhaps spark a third intifada. However, land within the West Bank is divided between full Palestinian control, joint Israeli-Palestinian control, or full Israeli control. Geopolitically, the region consists of a vast number of different religious and political groups. Nearly all ideological grounds are covered from radical Islamic groups such as Hamas and Salafi-Jihadis groups to orthodox Jews, to conservative political blocs, and to progressive liberal blocs. These geopolitical complexities are reinforced by border disputes and contribute to a lasting struggle for peace in the region. A one-state solution would likely resolve these territorial disputes by creating a shared and open Holy City of Jerusalem, eliminating the fear of and need for annexation, and easing geopolitical tensions in the region. By addressing the core conflict of border disputes in a one-state solution, lasting peace in the region could be achieved.

Context

Current borders in the region have been determined on the ground by Israel alone or with the help of the United States. These borders were the main subjects left for final stage negotiations by the Oslo Accords and expected to determine the implementation of the grand Israeli–Palestinian peace. Almost twenty-five years later, these issues are not yet resolved.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Maintaining security and stability within the state would be impossible. Without clearly marked borders, a single state will have to spend astronomical sums of money on security forces and police to prevent violence between Arabs and Jews.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Treating the conflict as fundamentally territorial understates what the argument itself goes on to describe: rival national identities, security claims and religious attachment to particular sites, none of which is settled by where a line is drawn or whether it is drawn at all. [Rejecting P2] The premise catalogues the disputes without showing that a single state resolves them. The same rival groups would remain, now inside one polity and contesting the same city and the same land. [Rejecting P3] Removing borders removes the mechanism, not the dispute. The counter-argument notes that without demarcated borders a single state would have to spend enormous sums on internal security to prevent the violence the borders were meant to contain, and the argument gives no account of how the shared Jerusalem it proposes would actually be governed.