Israel: The One State Solution
Recognizing Reality
There is nothing like a humble essay offering a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So, here goes. The reality is that Israel has never been serious about a two-state solution. They have never bargained in good faith with the Palestinians; they have never been willing to offer them anything close to what even resembles a sovereign state. They have done nothing but, murder indiscriminately, steal land and break treaty after treaty.
Also, Israel has absorbed and stolen too much of the West Bank and obliterated the previous demarcations to ever separate that land into two separate polities. The same is true of Gaza.
Furthermore, Israel’s partner in crime the United States has never seriously pushed for Israel to offer a two state solution. Even the vaunted Camp David Accords establishing peace between Israel and Egypt simply incentivized Egypt to prioritize the recovery of the Sinai Peninsula over the establishment of a Palestinian state. This same dynamic lies at the heart of the Abraham Accords pushed by Donald Trump in his first administration. It would see the Arab nations around Israel finally recognize Israel without Israel needing to accommodate a Palestinian state. Since the founding of Israel many of the Arab nations surrounding Israel have been willing to sell the Palestinians down the river to further their own interests. After 78 years of this merry-go-round perhaps it is time to think about a different solution.
One Land, One State
I only endorse a state at all as an improvement over the state sanctioned genocide of the Israeli regime. It is about harm reduction, not purity.
As with all things on this site, the first thing is to determine what God would have us do. From this perspective, the argument for a one-state solution shifts away from purely secular geopolitical pragmatism and toward a framework of “covenantal justice” and “imago Dei” (the image of God). Although I am quick to point out that God is principled and practical.
The primary scriptural argument for a single state where the rights of all are protected begins with the biblical truth that every human being, Israeli or Palestinian, Jew or Arab, is created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). A scriptural perspective would argue that any political system that institutionalizes the superiority of one ethnic group over another fails to obey the divine mandate to recognize the inherent dignity of the neighbor.
In a one-state solution, the protection of rights is not merely a legal concession but a theological necessity. If a state claims sovereignty over a land, it must exercise that sovereignty with the impartiality of the Creator. To “believe” in God’s justice is to “obey” by advocating for a system where “there is neither Jew nor Gentile” (Galatians 3:28) in the eyes of the law, ensuring that the Palestinian resident of Hebron and the Israeli resident of Tel Aviv are granted the same protections, freedoms, and duties.
The Stewardship of the Land
A common point of contention in fundamentalist “Christian” circles is the “divine right” to the land (I dealt with these spurious arguments here). However, a rigorous scriptural analysis suggests that land ownership in the Bible is always conditional upon obedience and the practice of justice (Leviticus 18:28). The land belongs to God; humans are merely stewards.
Therefore, a one-state solution can be viewed as an act of faithful stewardship. Rather than a zero-sum battle for “sovereignty,” the focus shifts to how the land can best reflect the Kingdom of God. A single, democratic state that protects the rights of all residents acknowledges that God’s blessing is not intended for one group at the expense of another’s oppression. By sharing the land in a unified state, both peoples can fulfill the biblical call to “seek the peace and prosperity of the city” (Jeremiah 29:7).
Justice and the Weightier Matters of the Law
Jesus critiqued religious leaders for tithing spices while neglecting the “weightier matters of the law, justice, mercy, and faithfulness” (Matthew 23:23). From the perspective of this ministry, any solution to the conflict should prioritize three pillars.
First, justice will require the restitution of property rights and the end of discriminatory legal tiers. A one-state solution provides a singular legal code that ends the “dual system” of military and civil law.
Second, mercy will involve the radical act of forgiveness and the welcoming of the “sojourner” (Exodus 22:21). A unified state allows for the right of return and the integration of refugees, reflecting the heart of a God who welcomes the outcast.
Third, faithfulness refers to keeping one’s word and acting with integrity. A state that guarantees equal rights for all is a state that acts with the integrity required of those who “believe and obey.”
The Call to Peacemaking
Finally, my perspective is rooted in the Beatitudes: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God” (Matthew 5:9). Peacemaking is not passive; it is an active, often painful process of reconciliation.
A two-state solution often relies on walls, borders, and separation, tools of “managed enmity.” In contrast, a one-state solution based on equal rights is a radical act of peacemaking. it requires both Israelis and Palestinians to obey the command to love their enemies and to see their “enemy” as a fellow citizen. It replaces the “wall of hostility” (Ephesians 2:14) with a shared house.
The Practical Side
The first issue of course to even consider this a possibility is to reorient U.S. policy toward peace. That means that the U.S. must be willing to cut off all Israeli military aid and assistance. Absent a severing of the abnormal U.S.-Israeli alliance there will be no possibility of bringing this about. That requires a sea change in U.S. attitudes toward the state of Israel. Fortunately, such a change appears in the offing as favorable attitudes toward Israel have dropped dramatically. For the moment, changing U.S. attitudes and policy is where the battle must be waged.
Let us assume for our purposes here that the solution will be a top down one imposed by the U.S. and/or the international community. For a one-state reality to be codified, international and local leaders must move from “conflict management” to “justice implementation.” This would require a new “Covenant of the Land”, a constitution that explicitly guarantees equal rights and protects the religious and cultural heritage of both Jews and Arabs, ensuring that no group becomes “third-class citizens.”
For a single state to work, it must address the “weightier matters” of the law: justice, security, and stewardship.
The current “two-tier” legal system (civil law for Israelis, military law for Palestinians) must be replaced by a single, secular democratic constitution. An independent judiciary would serve as the arbiter of rights, ensuring that land disputes are settled based on equitable property laws rather than ethnic priority.
Practical security would shift from border defense to civil policing. A joint Israeli-Palestinian security force would be trained in de-escalation and community policing. This reflects the biblical ideal of “beating swords into plowshares” (Isaiah 2:4), where resources spent on occupation are redirected toward social welfare and development. There would need to be an interim (perhaps permanent) international force deployed. This would need to be primarily from the Global South, as the West is not, nor will ever be conceived of as an impartial arbiter. All of this could be overseen by the United Nations Security Council.
In a one-state model, resources like water and land are treated as “divine trust” rather than spoils of war. A shared Ministry of Infrastructure would ensure that the “forgotten” communities (Gaza, the West Bank peripheries) receive the same level of investment in education, healthcare, and technology as Tel Aviv or West Jerusalem. This could then be transitioned to a truly free market where property rights are protected and enforced under the law.
A one-state solution provides a framework for Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland without displacing current residents. This would involve “reparative justice”, financial compensation and urban planning that allows for the growth of inclusive cities rather than segregated settlements.
Conclusion
Practically, a one-state solution functions when citizenship replaces ethnicity as the primary source of identity. For those who “Believe and Obey,” the goal is a state where “reconciliation is the point at which violence becomes unimaginable.” This is not just a political policy; it is the practical outworking of the command to love one’s neighbor as oneself. By building a state on the pillars of equality and shared stewardship, the Holy Land can transition from a site of perpetual war to a global model of divine justice.
Through the lens of Christ, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not just a political puzzle but a spiritual test. To argue for a one-state solution that protects the rights of all is to argue that God’s justice is more powerful than ethnic nationalism. It is a declaration that true security comes not from the exclusion of the “other,” but from the shared pursuit of righteousness. By advocating for a unified state where every resident is treated with the dignity of a divine creation, believers fulfill the highest calling of their faith: to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with their God.
Praise Be to God
