Antony Lerman it is who is in two minds but in the confused rather than the deliberative sense.
Lerman begins a post at Comment is Free by acknowledging that a one-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict is not favoured by either Israelis or Palestinians, and he refers, without saying whether he endorses this or not, to the view that a one-state solution denies the right of Jewish self-determination. So... as things currently stand a one-state solution would be undemocratic, not supported by either population, and it would, arguably, also be unjust, in violation of the right of the Jews to self-determination, though we don't yet know whether Lerman agrees with this point.
Next up, he spends some time explaining that, regardless of the rights or wrongs of the case, one state already exists de facto. Only thing is (it is plain from the detail) this one state is neither just nor democratic; it is under Israel's all-controlling hegemony.
Therefore, what? Turn the unjust and undemocratic one-state reality into a just and democratic one-state reality? Well, no. Lerman isn't pushing this; he 'believe[s] that it could only ever happen from a position of two states first and only with the consent of both peoples'. From which one is bound to infer that the just and democratic two-state solution must continue to be pursued, against the de facto one-state realities on the ground and whatever the difficulties. Yet though a proponent, consequently, of the two-state solution, Lerman deems it necessary to end by castigating those who engage in 'debates full of righteous indignation over the secular, democratic one-state idea' - which are, he says, 'just a distraction'.
Understand it who can. There are people, as Lerman knows, 'now calling for a "one-state" solution'; this wouldn't be democratic, and many would say that it wouldn't be just either; Lerman himself isn't calling for it, believing it would require the consent of both peoples. Engage, however, in debate with partisans of the democratic one-state idea, and you're being distracted as well as righteously indignant. He isn't righteously indignant, he's just massively more subtle than other people. Subtly confused.