Talk:One-state solution

message: Location of error: 3rd paragraph of article (with 1st line counted as the 1st paragraph); 2nd sentence. Change "...sought out a wish to..." to "...sought out from a wish to..." Add the word 'from' after 'out'. Goman1 (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Alduin2000 (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 July 2019 

message: The two sources come from opinion pieces and don't really say anything. The part that says Palestinians wanted people to be second class citizens is not really supported and seems intended to make the Palestinians look like racists.
I propose either removing the section or adding more detail on the level of support such as polling. Right now it just seems a propaganda piece for pro-Israel voices.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:ECC8:F00:20C9:8BEB:C926:84BD (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sauceweb's comments remind me of the infamous Fox News interview with Reza Aslan.  In that interview, Dr. Aslan was told that he has no authority to write about Jesus since he is a self-proclaimed Muslim.  Of course, the answer to that bigoted statement is that if Dr. Aslan did the research and is an expert on the subject at hand, he can speak about it with authority despite whatever religious/political views he may identify with personally.  --GHcool (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Where you miss is that Reza writes from a historical perspective, hence objective in nature. Whereas the source in question ([26]) is purely subjective as it is an opinion piece. Regardless of Benny Morris's credentials, what he writes as an opinion does not automatically make it objective and true. The same is applied to Aslan as well if he were to write an opinion piece. It's ridiculous to claim that Morris's opinion can be taken as an authority for what ordinary Palestinians want regarding their self-determination. It's doubly ridiculous that we are even sitting here essentially debating the meaning of "opinion". Sauceweb (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Palestinian views on Bi-National State

message: "Antiquity to World War 1" should mention that the only sovereign countries comprising the land during that period were Israel and Judea during biblical times.Normvcr (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  Although every historian knows this to be true, I can't find a source on a quick google search that says specifically asserts this.  I fear that if we assert it on Wikipedia without a source, it will be taken down as an example of original research or synthesized research.  Does anybody have a source that asserts it? --GHcool (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antiquity 

message: This 1946 document shows something that is appropriate for this article. Unfortunately Google Drive links tend to disappear. Zerotalk 01:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hashomer Hatzair 1946 

message: the Philippines, Liberia, and Haiti are all colored in a color not explained in the key.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.147.122.107 (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Map of UN Vote needs further explanation 

message: Quote under Academia:
"The conference also features Dianna Buttu, former legal advisor for the PLO "
Should be Diana Buttu, one n: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana_Buttu ralian (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo to be fixed 

message: Under heading "Arguments for and against," subheading "Against," final paragraph. "with each intifada more violent in the last" should be "with each intifada more violent than the last" Mlb96 (talk) 06:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done – robertsky (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 February 2021 

message: When the Golan Heights is first mentioned below the map of Israel-Palestine perhaps there could be a link to the article for further reading? Thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EmilePersaud 10:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Run n Fly (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 May 2021 

message: Since both this article and Isratin refer to a proposed "unitary, federal or confederate Israeli-Palestinian state" is there any reason not to merge them, the resulting article being entitled Bi-national state (Israeli–Palestinian peace process)? Mcljlm (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: ,  basing on your recent edits, I assume that 'this article' refers to Isratin? – robertsky (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  , I intended "Since both this article and Isratin ..." to appear here. I've edited my text. What do you think of suggestion? Mcljlm (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: A suggested article to add to the bibliography:
Jeremy Pressman, "Assessing One-State and Two-State Proposals to Solve the Israel-Palestine Conflict," E-IR, June 27, 2021, https://www.e-ir.info/2021/06/27/assessing-one-state-and-two-state-proposals-to-solve-the-israel-palestine-conflict/
Nutmeg39 (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Reading for Bibliography 

message: “the Israel Project” ought to be renamed to ‘The Israel Project’, given their acronym. 117.96.14.189 (talk) 13:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That should be discussed on the talk page at Talk:Israel Project, probably in the form of a move request. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 July 2021 

message: For the sentence widely viewed among supporters as a form of colonialism, change the link to the more specific settler colonialism instead. All three sources (refs 8, 9, 10) for this sentence use the term "settler colonialism". (Though the link for source 8 appears to be broken, here is the most recent page I can find via archive.org)aismallard (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I also updated citation 8 for the new URL. Thank you. TimSmit (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 February 2022 

message: The first line of Arguments for and against - Academia is poorly sourced. The source used doesn't explain how a one-state solution is anti-Israel and should really be removed.--Kappasi (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments for and against - Academia 

message: This page itself talks about the varitey of different kinds of One-State Solutions, but the problem is when I'm on the page for a specific Political Party and all it says about what Solution they support is One-State and then links here, that doesn't tell me specifically what that party means by that.  And if the page says they support a Binational State but links to this page I'm inclined to wonder if an editor was using the temrinology wrong? KuudereKun 15:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Afaik, these are alternative names for the same thing. If some other page is wrongly pointing here that's a problem on that page, not this one. Selfstudier (talk) 17:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Binational State epxlictly means a State that is Both Jewsih and Arab, "One State Solution' can still apply to solution that one of those two groups must be removed. KuudereKun 17:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't seem like a solution. Selfstudier (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It is from the POV of those who propose it. KuudereKun 23:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

text: That's the first time I've heard the 'One-State Solution' described like that (it does not usually incorporate ethnic cleansing) - do you have a reliable source for that? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The Popular Front for the Liberation fo Palestine is refered to on this site as a One-State Solution Party but when I look deeper into them they do not seem like Binationalists in the same way the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine is. KuudereKun 14:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion just took a Monty Python-esque turn. But more seriously, Wikipedia is not a reliable source - so again, do you have a reliable source for this? Iskandar323 (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and Wikipedia usage of these terms is all I was talking about. KuudereKun 15:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, the one line on that page about this topic appears to be entirely unsourced, so as far as in-Wiki references go, it's also pretty useless. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, even if a single minor political faction has an alternative take, there is no reason why that can't also be explained on this page too. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  One-State Solution and Binational State shouldn't share the same page. 

message: Change "However, interest in a one-state solution is growing as the two-state approach has not yet managed to reach a final agreement." to "However, interest in a one-state solution is growing as the two-state approach has not managed to reach a final agreement." 
The word "yet" implies it will happen in the future and of course we don't know that. Midwood123 (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Lemonaka (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 December 2022 

message: Under "Palestinian views on a binational state": Change "in which Europeans immigrants" to "in which European immigrants". There seems to be an extra "s" there. Midwood123 (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Lemonaka (talk) 10:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 January 2023 

message: There should not be a reference to the Green Party of the United States. That is one organization within a very small movement in the United States. This article serves a purpose of clarifying what the one-state solution is. No one in the US or Israel or Palestine is turning to the GPUS for guidance here. 
The section also equates Iran's policy that Israel has no right to exist with the one-state solution. That is very, very confusing. There is no reference to any information on Iran. This should also be removent. 2600:6C64:7B3F:4900:8C4C:35FD:6B40:8F0E (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Iran removed as unreferenced OR and Green party position as only a primary source (Green Party website). Selfstudier (talk) 09:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Request 

message: "During the following years, a large population of Jews living in Arab nations (close to 800,000) left or were expelled from their homes in what has become known as the Modern Jewish Exodus and subsequently resettled in the new State of Israel."
This sentence from the article gives an impression that is not in compatible with the well sourced article Jewish exodus from the Muslim world. 
This article states that the number of Jews resettling in Israel from Arab countries between 1948 and 1951 was 260.000. 
If you instead focus on the exodus from Muslim-majority countries (not only the Arab ones) between 1948 and 1980 it is stated as being 650.000. 
The sentence should be edited for clarity. At the moment it seems to imply, that the number of Jews from Arab countries resettling in Israel during 'the following years' exceed the number of Jews resettling in Israel across more than three decades and from both Arab and non-Arab Muslim-majority countries. Holscher (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request  

message: “one state” in the lead should be replaced for “a single state” to disambiguate this from the two-state solution. 82.36.70.45 (talk) 12:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  “Single” 

message: The Arguments in Favor section contains the following sentence:  "Israeli Prime Minister Olmert argued, in a 2007 interview with the Israeli daily Ha'aretz, that without a two-state agreement Israel would face 'a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights' in which case 'Israel [would be] finished'." That is an argument against, not in favor, right? I think this sentence should be moved to the Arguments Against section. --Westwind273 (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence out of place 

message: A big hole in this article is the Zionist position pre-1948, which was an overwhelming preference for a Jewish state in all of Palestine. Even before the Balfour Declaration that was true. Zerotalk 03:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big hole 

message: The first two lines of the section on Palestinian views on binational state are incorrect. As early as the 1930s, Palestinians put forward proposals for a secular, democratic state for Jews and Arabs.
On page 52 of Edward Said's 1979 essay "Zionism from the Standpoint of its Victims," he writes "first formulated in the 30s by the Arab wing of the Palestinian Communist party: the idea of a secular, democratic state in Palestine for Jews and Arabs." 
: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template.  Spintendo  05:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palestinian views on binational state is historically inaccurate 

message: Currently, the opening text in the "Palestinian views on a binational state" lack any sources and direct quotes. Please update the opening paragraph with the following text, quote, and sources:
Prior to the 1960s, a binational state was not accepted among Palestinians. The Palestinian position evolved following Israel's victory in the Six-Day War, when it became no longer realistic to expect the militarily powerful and densely populated Jewish state to disappear. Eventually, Palestinian leadership began flirting with the idea of a two-state solution.[28] However, some remained open to a one-state solution with equal rights for all; as a leader of the PLO’s prevailing Fatah faction observed in 1969, “there is a large Jewish population in Palestine, and it has grown considerably in the last twenty years. We recognize that it has the right to live there and that it is part of the Palestinian people. We reject the formula that the Jews must be driven into the sea. If we are fighting a Jewish state of a radical kind, which had driven the Arabs out of their lands, it is not so as to replace it with an Arab state which would in turn drive out the Jews. What we want to create in the historical borders of Palestine is a multiracial democratic state...a state without any hegemony, in which everyone, Jew, Christian, or Muslim will enjoy full civic rights.”[29][30] [31]
In 1979, Moshe Dayan contended…
-
[29] Gresh, Alain. (1988). The PLO: The Struggle Within. London . Zed Books. Pg. 33.
[30] Abunimah, Ali (2006) One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse. Picador. 
[31] Armstrong, Karen (2001). Holy War: The Crusades and Their Impact on Today’s World. Anchor Books. pg. 137-138 Maroo530 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template.  Spintendo  05:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 December 2023 

message: : There are two other, not entirely mutually exclusive, versions of the One State Solution that don't seem to be convered here? e.g. Netenyahu, Ben Gvir, and the guy who got killed on 2001-10-17 all seem(ed) to support a "one state solution" … but it doesn't sound like this one? There are infinite one state solutions, depending on what sort of state it would be, but there's at least three broad ideas.
:* bi-national
:* it's all Israel
:* it's all Palestine
: …and then each of the One Nation states (fittingly, the name of a somewhat  objectionable political party in my own country) have ethno-Nationalist and religios spins them.  It gets blurry in that advocates of each of the one nation solutions often claim - disingenuously, and intermittently depending on their audience - to want a bi-national state. But there are still 3 central ideas, even if the boundaries blur. 
:  If they have their own names or articles, they should have a prominant link in the "See Also" or "Don't Confuse". 
: Do such articles exist?
: What are their names? 
: If they don't already exist then this article needs a new subsection for each. 
: and if they're already here they need to be easier to find?
: Irtapil (talk) 08:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  But there are three "one state solutions"? 

message: Hello, I'm a volunteer for the One Democratic State Initiative, a small Palestinian political endeavor advocating for the creation of one secular state as a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We would like to request to be added on the page, under the In favor section, thank you very much.
This is our website if you need more information: https://odsi.co/en, and this is what should be put on the page if the request is granted:
The One Democratic State Initiative, a Palestinian-led political endeavor, advocates for one singular secular Palestinian state, where all citizens have the same rights and freedom of movement. 
Please make small edits where you see necessary.
Goodbye. Thoma000 (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are some secondary sources, I hope they are enough: https://odsi.co/en/ods-material/ Thoma000 (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 January 2024 

message: The Jewish "community" did not accept the two state partition plan. The Jewish Agency did. Zionists did not accept the partition plan.
More also needs to be said and described about what the one-state unitary democracy that was proposed by the Arab states in 1946 and 1947, what did it entail and why was it rejected? Otherwise it is a disservice to history and injustice to Palestinians to frame that rejection without any context or explanation and to follow the rejection of the two-state landgrab solution with the point of invasion. Ozmungs (talk) 06:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrections and explanations needed 

message: The Reut Institute was renamed to Reut Group, and changed its website along with it. The citation https://www.reut-institute.org/Publication.aspx?PublicationId=346 is dead along with https://reut-institute.org. Someone needs to go through and rename the group on the page to Reut Institute and the sources to their new website at https://www.reutgroup.org/ --Swesham (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 06:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Group Rename and Broken Links 

message: Change the reference link for 13 to this URL instead: https://apnews.com/united-states-government-e5c04516ee3c40d9800768573e2f7a8e 
The current link is dead, but this is likely the same wire copy filed by the AP reporter, Josh Lederman, and has the same quotes referenced. Paul Brescia (talk) 10:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: — hako9 (talk) 07:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 May 2024