Awad Abdelfattah
The Palestine Chronicle / May 10, 2026
The younger generation, particularly those most educated and committed, will have to confront these questions, challenges, and the most effective strategies of organization and resistance.
Is it still relevant, in a time of genocide, to think in terms of a political solution? To imagine and work toward a decolonized future in Palestine in the form of one democratic state? Is this now a conceptual luxury, or a political imperative—an act of resistance in itself? Or should political solutions be left to the aftermath of total liberation? Or should we simply rally around a rights-based discourse or trajectory through activating the apartheid framework?
As for the painful and existential question of a democratic state where all can live equally, it has re-emerged forcefully amid the ongoing, Western-backed Zionist genocide in Gaza. It is being asked across segments of the Palestinian people: is it morally and practically possible to envision coexistence with a genocidal society within a shared, free political framework?
I must admit that I, having long advocated for a democratic one-state solution since the early 1980s—from the Abnaa al-Balad movement (based in the 1948-occupied territories—Israel proper) to the cross-geographic One Democratic State Campaign, which I co-founded—also paused under the shock of the genocide. I, along with other colleagues, questioned whether it remained meaningful to continue this struggle.
Yet, after reflection, many of us remain convinced that this is not merely a political solution, but a unifying pathway: a long-term process of struggle and grassroots civil resistance. This conviction has only been reinforced by expanding imperial aggression in the region, particularly against Iran and Lebanon. This article does not aim merely to engage with the idea theoretically, but to defend it as a practical mission and an act of resistance.
The central objective of the war on Iran is Palestine
The current phase of destruction unfolding in Gaza, the accelerating violent annexation of the West Bank, the devastation in Lebanon, and the widening regional confrontation—particularly the imperial, expansionist war on Iran—do not represent separate or disconnected crises. They are components of a single historical moment: a coordinated attempt to decisively liquidate the Palestinian question and foreclose the possibility of Palestinian self-determination.
Contrary to claims that Palestine has been sidelined amid broader geopolitical conflicts, what we are witnessing is a deliberate reframing of the Palestinian struggle. The American-Israeli axis is not merely waging war on Gaza or confronting Iran as an isolated adversary; it is pursuing a comprehensive regional strategy aimed at restructuring the Middle East. This strategy seeks to consolidate Israeli colonial hegemony, accelerate normalization with subservient and dictatorial Arab regimes, and neutralize all forces capable of challenging this colonialism. At its core lies a clear objective: to transform Palestine from a central question of decolonization into a marginal humanitarian issue—manageable, fragmented, and ultimately dissolved.
The war on the Palestinian people is a global one, as it always has been. The old Western capitalist empires created the Palestinian tragedy by implanting a European colony in the heart of the Arab world, within the context of colonial expansion and the pursuit of resources and markets. Sadly, the imperial West continues to back the Zionist genocidal regime and deny the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people. This is why the Palestinian cause has become more than ever a global one, and has consequently triggered the emergence of the largest global solidarity movement for Palestine in history within Western countries.
Within this context, the war on Iran must be understood not as a distant geopolitical confrontation, but as an integral dimension of the struggle over Palestine. Its outcome will significantly shape the regional balance of power and, consequently, the horizons available to the Palestinian liberation movement. A weakened Iran would likely embolden Israeli expansionism, deepen normalization, and intensify repression against Palestinians. Conversely, the failure of this imperial project could disrupt existing power structures and open new possibilities for liberation, both for Palestinians and for peoples across the region and beyond. Many strategic analysts argue that this alliance is increasingly strained across multiple fronts due to grave miscalculations and the resilience of opposing forces. Yet how this confrontation will end—and how long it will last—remains unknown. It is worth noting that forces aspiring to a more just world order, and peoples struggling for freedom from colonialism, imperial wars, extreme exploitation, and poverty, are eager to see the defeat of the aggressors. Intersectional struggles have been emboldened, as they all revolve around justice for the oppressed and exploited.
Yet the external dimension, as decisive as it may be, cannot substitute for confronting the internal crisis of the Palestinian political project. Today, Palestinians are not only facing genocide and displacement; they are also confronting deep fragmentation within their national movement and a lack of strategic clarity. Efforts over the past two decades to reform the Palestinian political system, to oust the Palestinian Authority as a colonial subcontractor, and to produce new leadership with a clear vision have not achieved their goals. The average Palestinian continues to ask: who is capable of translating the people’s legendary steadfastness—especially in Gaza—and Israel’s growing international isolation into a meaningful political achievement?
Between anti-apartheid strategy and one-state vision
At the heart of this crisis lies an unresolved debate among Palestinian elites and political actors: what path could help restructure and unify the Palestinian national movement, and guide the struggle for liberation in light of the collapse of the two-state illusion, the genocidal war in Gaza, the accelerating annexation of the West Bank, the ever-escalating oppression of Palestinians in Israel proper, and the expanding imperial war across the region?
Several approaches exist, but two have become dominant.
The first frames the Palestinian struggle within an anti-apartheid paradigm, emphasizing equal rights within a reformed political structure, often without fully resolving the question of sovereignty or decolonization. In essence, it is more a strategy of resistance than a comprehensive solution. However, this approach has gained traction in international advocacy circles, particularly through the language of human rights and legal accountability. It is also the broadest area of consensus among Palestinians, which gives it practical importance given the unresolved crisis of representation. However, it risks reducing the Palestinian struggle to a civil rights issue within an ongoing settler-colonial reality. This does not downplay the crucial role that the BDS movement has been playing in the civil struggle to expose the apartheid state and isolate it. It has proved to be an effective strategy globally.
Within this camp, which rallies around one agreed slogan—“down with apartheid”—there remains no unified political vision, which many view as a strength rather than a vulnerability. Positions range from support for a two-state solution, to a one-state outcome, to calls for total liberation without specifying a final political framework. Notably, leading intellectuals associated with the BDS movement, such as Omar Barghouti, Haidar Eid, Ali Abunimah, and Ramzy Baroud, have written extensively in support of a democratic one-state solution, even while presenting these views as personal positions rather than official movement policy.
The second approach advances the vision of a democratic one-state solution across historic Palestine. This perspective understands the conflict as a classic case of settler colonialism, from which apartheid has emerged, and insists on a comprehensive process of decolonization: dismantling Zionist structures, enabling the return of refugees, and reconstructing the political community on the basis of equality, justice, and shared citizenship. It is not merely a constitutional proposal, but a transformative project that redefines the nature of the political order.
This idea is not new. It stood at the heart of the Palestinian liberation movement during the 1960s and early 1970s, before being eclipsed by the Oslo-driven illusion of partition. Today, history appears to have come full circle. The collapse of the two-state framework, long sustained as a diplomatic fiction, has reopened the question of the conflict’s true nature as one of settler colonialism, and with it, the horizon of full liberation in a single democratic state from the river to the sea.
Historically, this vision was not divisive; it was unifying. It provided a common political framework for Palestinians across geographies, including those who remained within the 1948 borders, whose national and civil rights are excluded by traditional regional and international actors. Today, however, its advocates face a critical challenge: transforming the idea into an organized, grassroots political force. Efforts to respond to this challenge are underway. In this context, initiatives such as the One Democratic State Campaign (ODSC) and the new One Democratic State Initiative (ODSI) are working toward building a broad coalition that includes Palestinians, anti-colonial Israelis, and international allies.
The tension between these approaches is not merely theoretical—it reflects deeper questions about the meaning of liberation itself. Is the goal to reform an unjust system, or to dismantle and replace it? Is the struggle about rights within existing structures, or about redefining the political and moral foundations of the land? In my opinion, these two approaches could function as a complementary coalition, rather than colliding. However, another challenge facing the one-state groups is the emergence of an stream of promising elites and activists—mainly from the younger Palestinian generation in the West—who uphold the slogan of total liberation without specifying a political solution. This is not an organized current, and it could represent a hindrance to building a unified, clear liberation vision and a grassroots movement with a defined political program, that can consist with the universal values of liberation, justice, and equality embraced by the growing global solidarity movement.
These debates have become even more urgent in light of the ongoing genocide in Gaza and the expansion of imperial violence across the region. In such a moment, a painful question arises: can Palestinians meaningfully speak about a shared democratic future with those carrying out genocidal violence against them?
This question cannot be dismissed. It reflects a profound moral rupture. For many, the scale of Zionist and American violence and dehumanization renders the idea of coexistence not only distant but unimaginable.
Yet abandoning the question carries its own danger. To relinquish a political vision is to accept the terms imposed by the dominant power. Without a clear horizon, the struggle risks being reduced to reactive resistance, fragmented efforts, or humanitarian appeals. Even the most heroic resistance can be contained or neutralized without a defined political goal.
For this reason, the democratic one-state vision must be rearticulated—not as an immediate solution or a naïve call for coexistence, but as a long-term strategic horizon. Its importance lies not in short-term feasibility, but in its capacity to anchor the struggle in a coherent framework of decolonization, justice, and equality.
Clarity is not a luxury—it is a necessity
This project must be understood as a multidimensional process: dismantling settler-colonial structures, confronting Zionist ideology, enabling refugee return, and building inclusive democratic institutions. It must also clearly distinguish itself from both the current Zionist system and authoritarian models in the Arab world. The aim is not merely one state, but a genuinely democratic state—grounded in equality, diversity, and accountability. This state should be part of a liberated and democratic Arab world.
In all scenarios, the principle of democracy remains non-negotiable. We reject the continuation of a racist colonial regime. We reject political models based on corruption or dependency. And we reject authoritarian systems that suppress their own populations.
At the same time, rebuilding the Palestinian national movement is essential. The absence of unified, representative leadership remains a central obstacle. This requires not only institutional reform, but a rethinking of priorities, the inclusion of grassroots and diaspora actors, and the development of a renewed liberation program. Within this, the one-state vision can serve as a unifying framework.
A clear political vision is not a distraction from immediate tasks—it is a condition for their success. Historically, liberation movements have relied on defined goals to mobilize support and sustain struggle.
Today, Palestinians face multiple simultaneous challenges: resisting ongoing genocidal violence, addressing a humanitarian catastrophe, rebuilding political structures, and articulating a long-term vision. These are not separate tasks; they are interconnected.
The regional dimension adds further complexity. The outcome of the confrontation with Iran will shape the broader environment. But regardless of that outcome, the fundamental question remains: what political future are Palestinians fighting for?
This answer cannot be postponed. The democratic one-state project must be asserted as a Palestinian-driven vision, rooted in historical experience and collective aspiration. Its strength lies in providing direction and coherence.
In a time of genocide and war, this may seem distant. Yet moments of crisis also contain the seeds of transformation. The challenge is to ensure that when this phase ends, Palestinians are not left without a vision, a strategy, or a political horizon.
The struggle for Palestine has never been only about survival. It is about the future worth fighting for. To insist on imagining a liberated, democratic Palestine is not theoretical—it is an act of resistance.
To conclude, embracing a one-state solution does not mean that all questions regarding how to reach that end, and what exactly this future will look like, are resolved. Some of these questions, whether longstanding or newly emerging, will be shaped by the evolving dynamics of the colonial conflict, the resistance, and internal Palestinian struggles.
The younger generation, particularly those most educated and committed, will have to confront these questions, challenges, and the most effective strategies of organization and resistance. In the meantime, the primary contribution of current ODS initiatives is to lay the groundwork for the next stage.
Awad Abdelfattah is a political writer and the former general secretary of the Balad party; he is the coordinator of the Haifa-based One Democratic State Campaign, established in late 2017
