Regarding Gwynne Dyer’s column (Bibi, Benny and Ruvi: the future of Israel, March 18): While there’s a virtual consensus for a two-state solution to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Gwynne Dyer's advocating for the “one-state solution” is being insidiously sold in the language of peace.
So why then is the one-state or bi-national solution unacceptable? At its most basic level, the one-state solution denies the right of Jews to self-determination in their historical homeland and calls into question the very legitimacy of Israel as a state. A bi-national state would have the same consequence as the "right of return"— the negation of Israel as a Jewish state. Palestinians, by virtue of a higher birthrate, would turn Jews into a minority before voting in favour of another Muslim Arab state in place of Israel.
The one-state solution is therefore a thinly veiled strategy for destroying the State of Israel and questioning its very right to exist.
That doesn't seem like a solution to me.
Mike Fegelman,
Executive director,
HonestReporting Canada
