There's a long piece here commending a one-state solution for Israel and Palestine. The author, Mark Satin, presents it as gaining traction lately, and though he found some overtones of anti-Semitism in the advocacy for it, mostly he didn't:
[T]he vast majority of texts I surveyed - all from the last five years - as well as the vast majority of thinkers and activists I've spoken with on this subject, do not question Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.Satin goes on to summarize the case: there's now no partition that would be acceptable to majorities on both sides; Israel and the occupied territories already function as a single state; the two peoples are thoroughly intertwined; a one-state solution is forward-looking rather than backward-looking with respect to politics and ethnicity; the pluralism of a single state would be a boost to democracy; on both sides there are historical precedents for harmonious coexistence; and there are emerging practical visions of how this future would look.
Rather, they question the wisdom of its existing as a specifically Jewish state when Jewish life and culture could be equally well (and arguably more securely and benignly) preserved in that same region in a secular, democratic state that was constitutionally sensitive to the needs of all its peoples.
What is key here, of course, is the acknowledgement that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state. So long as that means what it says, anyone is entitled to argue about how wise various envisaged solutions might be. But for the acknowledgement to indeed mean what it says, a one-state solution cannot come except by way of the explicitly sought and obtained consent of the Israeli Jews. Does Satin respect that constraint? I'm not sure. See his 10 points at the end on 'Emerging strategy'. They include a number of points about the need for pressure from outside - from the human-rights community, the US, and both diaspora peoples. True, Satin also talks about encouraging Israelis and Palestinians to join together. And if this is what he really means, then fair enough. But it's a crucial point. A right is a right; being persuaded how to use it is one thing, and exercising it under external duress is another.