Democracy: An existential threat?

Ali Abunimah and Omar Barghouti, The Electronic Intifada, 30 December 2007


As two of the authors of a recent document advocating a one-state solution to the Arab-Israeli colonial conflict we emphatically intended to generate debate. Predictably, Zionists decried the proclamation as yet another proof of the unwavering devotion of Palestinian -- and some radical Israeli -- intellectuals to the "destruction of Israel." Some pro-Palestinian activists accused us of forsaking immediate and critical Palestinian rights in the quest of a "utopian" dream.

Inspired in part by the South African Freedom Charter <1> and the Belfast Agreement <2>, the much humbler One State Declaration, authored by a group of Palestinian, Israeli and international academics and activists, affirms that "The historic land of Palestine belongs to all who live in it and to those who were expelled or exiled from it since 1948, regardless of religion, ethnicity, national origin or current citizenship status." It envisages a system of government founded on "the principle of equality in civil, political, social and cultural rights for all citizens."

It is precisely this basic insistence on equality that is perceived by Zionists as an existential threat to Israel, undermining its inherently discriminatory foundations which privilege its Jewish citizens over all others. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was refreshingly frank when he recently admitted that Israel was "finished" if it faced a struggle for equal rights by Palestinians. <3>

But whereas transforming a regime of institutionalized racism, or apartheid, into a democracy was viewed as a triumph for human rights and international law in South Africa and Northern Ireland, it is rejected out of hand in the Israeli case as a breach of what is essentially a sacred right to ethno-religious supremacy (euphemistically rendered as Israel's "right to be a Jewish state.")

Palestinians are urged by an endless parade of Western envoys and political hucksters -- the latest among them Tony Blair -- to make do with what the African National Congress rightly rejected when offered it by South Africa's apartheid regime: a patch-work Bantustan made up of isolated ghettoes that falls far below the minimum requirements of justice.

Sincere supporters of ending the Israeli occupation have also been severely critical of one-state advocacy on moral and pragmatic grounds. A moral proposition, some have argued, ought to focus on the likely effect it may have on people, and particularly those under occupation, deprived of their most fundamental needs, like food, shelter and basic services. The most urgent task, they conclude, is to call for an end to the occupation, not to promote one-state illusions. Other than its rather patronizing premise, that these supporters somehow know what Palestinians need more than we do, this argument is quite problematic in assuming that Palestinians, unlike humans everywhere, are willing to forfeit their long-term rights to freedom, equality and self-determination in return for some transient alleviation of their most immediate suffering.


read on!

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9187.shtml

Might it be because groups such as Hamas have shown, in words and in actions, a willingness to kill Jews, and indeed Palestinians who don't agree with them? Might it be because many Arab states don't allow *any* Jews to visit, let alone live, in them - and even when they did, treated them as second- or third-class citizens? (As most of them indeed treat Palestinian residents.) Might it be because Hamas supports an Islamic theocracy that would place Jews, Christians and secular people under Sharia law?

I am not a supporter of the status quo. I believe that the Occupation is both unjust, and, in the long term, unworkable. I strongly support a two-state solution with a fully independent Palestinian state. Hell, I might even support a one-state solution of Jews and Arabs living happily together - *if I thought it was a possibility in the short or medium term*. Unfortunately, it isn't. Not soon. Maybe in the very long-term.

People who support this 'solution' (who do not include most Israelis or most Palestinians) tend IMO to fall into two groups. One is people who are strongly anti-Israel and/or pro-Islamic rule, and, while not necessarily wanting the Jews to be killed or even expelled, would be happy to see them made subservient to Arab/ Islamic law. The other group are left/liberal anti-nationalists, who take a view not too dissimilar to that of the American diplomat who is said to have remarked in 1948: "The Jews and Arabs should settle their differences like good Christians". This second group think that "The Jews and Arabs should settle their differences like good anti-nationalist secular humanists". As a pretty good anti-nationalist secular humanist myself, I admit to some sympathy for the view(!), but I am aware that in the real world, many Jews and most Arabs do *not* subscribe to secular humanism; and even fewer in either group subscribe to left-wing anti-nationalism. 'Pie in the sky' must sometimes give way to common-sense. A one-state solution under present circumstances would lead to a bloodbath killing both Jews and Arabs, and to permanent inferior status, if not something much worse, for the Jews.

And as regards the Northern Ireland agreement: that was really about making a two-state solution (the two states being the UK and Ireland) fairer and more acceptable to all than it had previously been. The equivalent of a one-state solution would have been to cede Northern Ireland completely to the Republic of Ireland (which might have been the fairest solution in historical terms, but would probably have resulted in a bloodbath). Or indeed to have a joint state combining the UK and the Republic of Ireland into one entity - not something that anyone, British or Irish, would seriously propose.

As regards:

'assuming that Palestinians, unlike humans everywhere, are willing to forfeit their long-term rights to freedom, equality and self-determination in return for some transient alleviation of their most immediate suffering.'

Unlike humans everywhere? Most humans everywhere have in fact been prepared to sacrifice quite a lot in terms of 'long-term rights' to alleviate or prevent 'immediate suffering'.

I also suspect that Palestinians, 'like humans everywhere' - and certainly like Israelis - are pretty divided among themselves as to what they want.

I wish that people like you, who are intelligent and clearly desirous of peace, would put aside the rhetoric and look at the facts on the ground.

In spite of the efforts to paint Hamas as the Palestinian Al Qaeda, they are not that.

They have ceased suicide operations, and aren't respnsible for the rockets launched out of Gaza. Is it inconceivable to you that some in Palestine would believe they have the right to resist by any means necessary? Geez, even African Americans in the US in the 60s believed that.

Here's the thing: Hamas has had overwhelming support in Palestine. If what you write about Hamas is fundamdentally true -- that they are about killing Jews, then you have to face the fact that a majority of Palestinians also stand for that.

What do you do with that?

The fact is that "killing Jews" is NOT what Hamas is about.

I find an understandable propensity on this forum for the pro-Israel posters to look at everything as though it's about Jews. This conflict is not about hating Jews. It's about Israeli refusal to allow an entire nation the basic human rights that the majority of humans on the globe takes for granted. Hamas isn't an organization whose mission is to hate Jews. Their goal is to liberate their nation. They have employed a variety of tactics to achieve that end. Just as Israel has employed a variety of tactics to achieve its ends -- many of which were beyond heinous.

As for killing other Palestinians, LB, are you familiar with the actions that Fatah has employed?

Please hear me well. I am not defending ANY of this behavior; I am pointing out that it is hardly unique to Hamas. I do not support Hamas. I would not vote for them. I don't think their tactics are effective and I think they hurt the Paletsinian cause. But Hamas' existence is not reason enough for you to refuse to consider Ali Abunimah's point.

So please, put that false rhetoric aside and consider the article!!

(Note to McGhee, Veggie, etc. Don't bother replying. I know full well what you think. I am attempting to discuss something with one of the few on your side whose opinion I respect. Save your breath)

I am saying that Jews would be put at very major risk by a 'one state solution' under present circumstances.

And it isn't only about Hamas either; they are just the current leadership, so need to be considered. I don't think Fatah are great either (corrupt; sometimes violent) but they do seem less extreme, more secular, less far-right than Hamas. I think Palestine are badly in need of some completely new leadership but then so are most groups and nations.

It's about what would happen if there were an abrupt 'one-state solution'. Do you honestly think that the Jews would be safe under the circumstances? I might think so if there were ONE Arab state that at the moment gave any, let alone equal, rights to Jews. I don't think that there's something intrinsic to Arab culture that prevents giving equal rights to Jews. But the dominant political attitudes at the moment do. Like there isn't anything *intrinsic* to Western Europaean culture that prevents Jews from having equal rights - and right now we DO have them in Western Europe - but we know what the situation has been at various times in the past (and I'm not even talking JUST about the Nazis here).


'It's about Israeli refusal to allow an entire nation the basic human rights that the majority of humans on the globe takes for granted.'

Well, perhaps part of my whole point is a basic disagreement with part of this sentence. And the part with which I most strongly disagree is not the Israel part - it's the phrase 'the basic human rights that the majority of humans on the globe take for granted'. But *do* they take them for granted? In most parts of the world, many people lack a LOT in the way of basic human rights; in some, they lack virtually any basic human rights. (A very quick glance at the Amnesty International website will give plenty of examples worldwide). Human rights are a very precious and very fragile and rather rare commodity; and the 'one-state solution' here would be lighting a match near a powder-keg, with 'human rights' likely to be one of the first casualties.

(And no, I don't think the current status quo is fair or acceptable either.)

because of a possibility that an Israeli might not _____ (fill in the blank).

Personally, I'm a lot more alarmed by the *actual* lack of safety for Palestinians today than by the potential lack of safety for Israelis at some point in the future. But I understand that you're more concerned about potentialities for Isarelis than actualities for Palestinians.

That's why I want a two-state solution.

(fill in the blank: 'survive' -under present circumstances).

"business as usual," unless of course one lives in Sderot.

than either the status quo or a one-state 'solution'.

I know you've said that because of the increase in Israeli settlements, a two-state solution is no longer possible. But why? Why not just insist that the settlements be relinquished as part of the two-state solution? People who formed settlements in the last 10 or 15 years KNEW that a two-state solution was being considered, and that therefore their settlements might end up being disbanded. So I don't see the problem/ injustice from even an Israeli perspective of disbanding them. SO from that point of view - what's the difference between now and 10 or 15 years ago? You have said that a two-state solution might have been possible 10 or 15 years ago.

But let's look at the practicalities of a 'one-state solution' for a moment:

(1) How will this be established?

(2) How do you propose to get Israelis (and all Palestinians) to accept it?

(3) What sort of government do you envisage? Mixed Jewish/ Arab? In what proportions? Or Arab only?

(4) Do you propose *any* way of establishing Jewish/ Christian/ secular/ other minority rights in such a state? If so, how?

Jumping into one supposed solution because the status quo is bad, is often the same as jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. (E.g. the war in Iraq - Saddam WAS a bad man and deprived many people of human rights, but rushing to depose him by force created an even worse situation.)

The status quo is bad - so let's try and think of solutions that will (a) be accepted without a war breaking out; and (b) will WORK. I honestly don't think that a one-state solution will work. Not now. Maybe in 30 or 40 years' time after a two-state solution has been put into place.

But the rate things are going, that doesn't appear likely. More likely is engagement in a meaningless "process" designed to drag out the status quo.

The status quo might be just fine and dandy for Israelis, but it's not for palestinians. And as long as pro-Israeli folks allow the meaningless process to stagnate forward, you're allowing the status quo to fester.

It's one thing if you say, tough crap: my vested interest is Israel. But for someone like yourself who clearly is concerned about both sides, I don't quite get how you can straddle the middle.

Surely you recognize that the status quo is simply not tenable. Not for moral people, anyway.

The Geneva Accord proposes this compromise on the subject of borders:

"According to the accord and maps, the extended borders of the State of Israel will include Jewish settlements currently beyond the Green Line, Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, and territories with significance for security surrounding Ben Gurion International Airport. These territories will be annexed to Israel on agreement and will become inseparable from it.

In return to the annexation of land beyond the 1967 border, Israel will hand over alternative land to the Palestinian, based on a 1:1 ratio. The lands annexed to the Palestinian State will be of equal quality and quantity."

Regarding Jerusalem, the accord proposes:

"The parties shall have their mutually recognized capitals in the areas of Jerusalem under their respective sovereignty.

The Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem will be under Israeli sovereignty, and the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem will be under Palestinian sovereignty.

The parties will commit to safeguarding the character, holiness, and freedom of worship in the city.

The parties view the Old City as one whole enjoying a unique character. Movement within the Old City shall be free and unimpeded subject to the provisions of this article and rules and regulations pertaining to the various holy sites."

http://www.geneva-accord.org/general.aspx?FolderID=250&lang=en

Former President Carter has expressed his support for this proposal, stating that it would provide for a contiguous Palestinian state in the West Bank.

In Carter's words: It is unlikely that we shall ever see a more promising foundation for peace.

http://www.cartercenter.org/news/documents/doc1556.html

On the Palestinian side, this Accord is promoted by the Palestinian Peace Coalition.

A list of the members of the steering committee and staff of that organization can be found here:

http://www.ppc.org.ps/inner.php?contents=about.3

What are your thoughts on this initiative as a foundation for creating a two-state solution?

but I also know from experience that "Jerusalem" settlements extend all the way to Ramallah.

I get the sense from some of your posts that you do not consider the Abbas government to be truly representative.

Is that accurate?

my view of Fatah's illegitimacy at this point isn't because I am a Hamas supporter. I am not. But they were elected by a majority of the electorate; yet most of the world has chosen to ignore that.

I think it's pointless to negotiate with a Palestinian body that represents only a fraction of the population. They can't bring it. They can't deliver on any promise they make. What's the point?

The sooner a unity gov't, the better... unless of course your objective is to waste time and maintain the status quo.

Most Palestinians seem to indicate that they don't really have a lot of confidence in the leaders of either party.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I support two states and an end to the occupation. Which is not the status quo.

I don't know whether you think my preferred solution is wrong, or that it's simply not possible. I think that it is possible; and that a one-state solution is not possible at present (at least, not in a way that most people on either side will accept).

in a public forum, you don't get to pick and choose who can respond to you (If I am "Veggie" and not Vegas?). You can put me on ignore if you want to, I don't care. But I can still call bullshit to a bullshit post.

Hamas is clear in its goal: "liberation of ALL of historic Palestine", which includes all lands within and outside the '67 "borders". Occupied territory or Israeli land, it doesn't matter to Hamas. As far as Hamas is concerned, there will be resistance until there isn't a Jew left in historic Palestine.

Those are very clear goals. There is no room in those goals for "one state" for both Jews and Arabs. It is one state for Arabs only. So no, there is no listening to this idiotic point of view, now or later.

If and when Hamas and IJ and the rest of the Islamic groups ever stop their inflammatory rhetoric and action, then there might be a time to discuss one state. Right now is not the time.

articles you post, no matter how many are written, that's not going to change the facts: The lsrge majority of both Israelis and Palestinians don't support it. You can't impose your will on others.

It's a Panglossian proposal at this time. If it happens organically over years through demographic changes, that's one thing. Imposing the will of outsiders on the parties, is another.

Why people don't seem to grasp the arrogance in this proposal, is beyond me.

implausible?

This is not a theoretical question. The amount of massive expansion throughout the Occupied West Bank and Occupied East Jerusalem really does raise that possibility to a point of a very genuine reality.

Already the new massive road and other infrastructure systems which connect throughout the West Bank, around Jerusalem and in the Jordan Valley have effectively cantonized the Occupied Palestinian Territories into disjointed population centers in which a viable and contiguous and independent state is becoming or some even believe already has become improbable. This is the on-the-ground reality! Can it be changed? Possibly, but it would take an enormous amount of political will that simply does not exist at this time and certainly does not appear to be developing. Just as almost no one imagines Maale Adumin or Gilo and other major settlement blocks on Occupied Palestinian land to be removed or turned over to Palestinian sovereignty -- it is only a matter of time before the massive expansion throughout the Jordan Valley and a the rest of the West Bank that all the road systems and infrastructure which cuts up and dissects the Occupied Palestinian Territories into disjointed and non-economically viable population centers will likely be similarly institutionalized.

Let me make it clear...I am not beating the drum for the one-state solution! I REALLY am not. I would absolutely and definitely support a two-state solution -- provided it is a genuine and viable and genuinely contiguous and genuinely independent state with unimpeded access to the capital in East Jerusalem.

Even most of those who strongly prefer a one-state solution would support a two state solution under those conditions.

But much of this expansion simply does make one wonder if that will be possible or plausible. It makes a lot of people wonder that.

---

There is certainly nothing arrogant about suggesting a different approach if the assumed orthodoxy appears to be rapidly fading as a possibility or at least as a probability. Especially there is certainly nothing wrong for a member of a Palestinian family who has lived in both the West Bank and Gaza and knows the on-the-ground reality first hand to speak the truth as they have seen it with there own eyes and know it from their own family and loved ones.

Admittedly this is anecdotal, but still a true story. A friend of mine just got back from East Jerusalem a few weeks ago. He hadn't been there since 1997. He had always supported the two-state solution for as long as I knew him. He came back absolutely convinced that it is now a flat-out physical impossibility.

ALL ideas start out as minority opinion. Even the concept of Jewish/Zionist state in Palestine was supported by only of minority of Jews both secular and religious at the time Mr. Herzl and associates met in Basil, Switzerland in 1897 and for the first few decades thereafter.

And though most Palestinians in a straight up or down question cite the two-state solution as the option they support. It is equally clear that a majority of Palestinians are certainly not at all opposed to the one-state solution in principle but have doubts of its probability but are very sympathetic to the concept in principle:

"Here is poll from February 2007 Conducted by Near East Consulting of :

Support or opposition to a one-state solution in historic Palestine where Muslims, Christians and Jews have equal rights and responsibilities

"A survey that was recently executed by Near Eastern Consulting in Ram allah revealed that 70 percent of the Palestinians support the one-state solution <3>. The survey was held amongst 1200 randomly selected Palestinians in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and Jerusalem.
links: http://www.jai-pal.org/content.php?page=491
http://www.neareastconsulting.com/surveys/all/p22/out_freq_q27.php

This result is in line with the survey amongst 520 opinion leaders. 67.5% of the interviewed Palestinian opinion leaders in the West Bank and Gaza Strip see the solution of the conflict in one democratic state in historical Palestine for all its citizens without discrimination based on religion, race, ethnicity, color or sex."
link:
http://www.alternativenews.org/news/english/palestinian-poll-on-final-status-issues-borders-refugees-jerusalem-water-politics-democracy-20070304.html

---

There is very serious doubt if a two-state solution will or even can ever happen. If there is no two-states --- well 2-1 = 1. That is very simple math.

To quote the former Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem, Meron Benvenisti

"And there's a fourth model, which can be called "undeclared binationalism." It's a unitary state controlled by one dominant national group, which leaves the other national group disenfranchised and subject to laws "for natives only," which for the purposes of respectability and international law are known as laws of "belligerent occupation." The convenience of this model of binationalism is that it can be applied over a long period of time, meanwhile debating the threat of the "one state" and the advantages of the "two states," without doing a thing. That's the situation nowadays. But the process is apparently inevitable. Israel and the Palestinians are sinking together into the mud of the "one state." The question is no longer whether it will be binational, but which model to choose."

from: Which kind of binational state?

By former Jerusalem Deputy Mayor Meron Benvenisti

link:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=363062&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

.

that cant be removed.....israel as a jewish state simply cant afford give the Palestinians citizenship....nor can it afford not to if its a single state. The "cheaper alternative" when the time comes is to leave whats been built, or destroy it...its been done in the past...Lebanon, Egypt and Gaza.....

table for negotiation? They are "facts on the ground". How can you say that on the one hand, and on the other claim that everything can be removed? One of those is patently false. And since the expansion continues, along with the wall, it's obvious which one it is.

at taba...major blocks remain for a land swap. You may not agree to that, but that was the general agreement between the PA and Israeli govt. And they are the ones that actually count..those others that want to play with their narrow view of absolute justice and their principles, will have little say, as all that will do is prolong the war..anyways I doubt any of them even live out here

the rest..the roads obviously can stay....the smaller settlements can go (examples in gaza....) and wall?....the berlin wall went down didnt it? The expansion may or may not continue....as long as they are kassams and katushas falling on our cities, no one is going to be removing any more settlements....

in commenting on Douglas's post...hes been around for awhile and is very aware of the taba agreement..and understands no single party will get all they want. (there will be no "absolute justice")

His concern was that once built there is no return...i disagree and israel has shown where its possible (I was writing about the principle not the details)

I'm back from Madrid and ready to waste my time here for a bit.

I think the OP makes a few generalizations about the motives and reality of the conflict that, while common, are neither accurate nor realistic. It's so disheartening for me when I see these generalizations made, not out of ignorance, but from people who understand the conflict well yet choose to misrepresent reality because of their own interests.

It is precisely this basic insistence on equality that is perceived by Zionists as an existential threat to Israel, undermining its inherently discriminatory foundations which privilege its Jewish citizens over all others. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was refreshingly frank when he recently admitted that Israel was "finished" if it faced a struggle for equal rights by Palestinians.

I just had a conversation with a friend on the plane ride back to NYC about the conflict and was surprised by his confusion as to Zionism's definition. It does not mean "settler" or "greater Israel fanatic." And it is not equality that we fear nor was that anything close to what Olmert was saying. Rather, it reflects the recognition that Israel can not incorporate the west bank into itself or continue to expand settlements into the territories without destroying itself as a Jewish state. The article cited continued...

If the two-state solution collapsed, he said, Israel would "face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights, and as soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished". Israel's supporters abroad would quickly turn against such a state, he said.

"The Jewish organizations, which were our power base in America, will be the first to come out against us because they will say they cannot support a state that does not support democracy and equal voting rights for all its residents," he said.

Nor would many Israelis support an Israel that incorporated the territories while denying equal rights to its new citizens. A single state solution would mean either implementing apartheid or Israel ceasing to exist as a Jewish state. Subjective morality aside, neither possibilities are tenable for Israel. So what Olmert's really saying here is that the two state solution is the only solution; an admission that the limitless settlement mentality is a ticket to nowhere. That doesn't mean that he, (or any Israeli politician) will give up more land than they believe they have to. It isn't an admission that Palestine should be everything east of the green line; it's too late for that vision of Palestine to come to pass. But it is an understanding that the price for failing to succeed in creating a viable, separate Palestinian state would be too high. And that's the important thing.

No state in the history of the world has ever given up land that it wanted, and thought it could hang on to, unless it had an interest in doing so. THIS is Israel's interest. You can talk about what should have happened or what is right or fair or whatever but none of that really matters when we get down to brass tacks. There will never be a large scale boycott of Israel over the occupation for the same reason that Israel will never give up more of the west bank than it absolutely has to. The Palestinian situation is reported on so heavily because their enemy is the Jews; not because their story is unique or because the world at large cares much about their fate. The Kurds were actually promised a state after WWI but once that ship sailed it was gone. No one talks about a future Kurdistan now like they do of Palestine, just like how news of Arabs killing Palestinians is barely reported. The world's interests (and interest) lies with Israel, not Palestine.

If the Palestinians want a state they will have to be prepared to do it in a way that benefits Israel. The article has it backwards, Israel's "sacred right to ethno-religious supremacy" isn't the problem. Rather Israel's basic need to avoid such a reality is the Palestinian's luckiest break. No other country in the middle east has such a limitation listed among their national interests.

Lands have been conquered and not returned umpteen times in wars. Borders are and have been continually redrawn throughout history.

This occupation is the only one that receives this much interest or press.

Israelis will NEVER agree to a one-state solution. NEVER. Doesn't matter how much the Palestinians or the rest of the world thinks this is the right thing to do. Even the most anti-occupation liberals in Israel are not in favor of one-state.

Lands have been conquered and not returned umpteen times in wars. Borders are and have been continually redrawn throughout history.

International law is very clear that territory cannot be acquired by war. It doesn't matter that in the 19th century and before it was a whole different ballgame and lands were conquered and not returned umpteen times. We're in the here and now and laws have changed for the better...


This occupation is the only one that receives this much interest or press.

Yep. The US occupation of Iraq didn't get nearly as much coverage. Neither did the Indonesian occupation of East Timor in the press over here. They both got far more coverage and stirred more interest than the I/P conflict...


Israelis will NEVER agree to a one-state solution. NEVER.

And who appointed you the arbiter or what Israelis will or won't agree to? Yr an American, aren't you? Neither Israelis nor Palestinians would be likely to agree to a one state solution in the current environment, but to predict that they'll never, never, NEVER!!!! agree to something like that in the future is going a bit crazy with that old crystal ball...

Doesn't matter how much the Palestinians or the rest of the world thinks this is the right thing to do.

Um, did it occur to you that the majority of Palestinians don't want a one-state solution either?

Even the most anti-occupation liberals in Israel are not in favor of one-state.

I'm pretty sure that there'd be some level of support for the binational solution in Israel, especially in academic circles. While the level of support wouldn't be large, to claim that no-one in Israel supports it seems a bit strange. Do you have any links to support what you claimed?

who oppose a single state.

Do you know any Israelis?

You claimed even the most anti-occupation Israeli doesn't support a binational state. To make such an absolutist statement is ridiculous.

This poll is from 2000 and numbers may have dropped since then, but it's quite clear that a small percentage of Israeli Jews do support a binational state.

Q.5 Some argue that the Two Sates for the Two People formula is the preferable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, while others argue that historic Palestine cannot be divided into two states and therefore a bi-national state in which the Israelis and the Palestinians will have equal representation in the various institutional of government regardless of the relative size of the two populations is the most preferable one. Which of the two solutions do you prefer?


18.1% of Israeli Jews preferred a binational state...

http://www.jmcc.org/publicpoll/results/2000/no39b.htm#results