President Donald Trump generated considerable discussion earlier this year with his vague suggestion that the US may no longer abide by the two-state “solution”, albeit while offering no alternative in the process. In 2016, international institutions started voicing the very obvious observation that the two-state imposition is obsolete, yet still insisted upon negotiations tethered to the same paradigm.

Debates over two-state or one-state drew two main conclusions. Israel is opposed to both, although the cycle of negotiations based upon the two-state hypothesis provides it with an unregulated opportunity to colonise more and more Palestinian territory. A one-state possibility is, apparently, unacceptable to Israel due to its demography altering the concept of a “Jewish state”; there would be “too many” Palestinians in it. Palestinians and Palestinian supporters, on the other hand, are more partial to a one-state result, given that such an arrangement would stand more of a chance of ensuring equal rights and addressing outstanding issues such as the legitimate right of return.

Between these opposing views, there is a sinister reality which has been depicted clearly by a recent poll conducted by the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs, a research institute specialising in public diplomacy and foreign policy. The poll’s findings, based upon a total of 521 Jewish-Israeli respondents, were described as representative of the Israeli population as a whole and seeking “to examine the attitudes of the Jewish public in Israel on several issues regarding a peace agreement or other arrangements with the Palestinians.”

Among other issues, this “representative sample” is opposed to ending Israel’s military occupation and in favour of a “unified Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty”; the latter drew the approval of 79 per cent of the respondents. Withdrawal from the entire occupied West Bank was opposed by 77 per cent of the participants in the poll; full Israeli security control of the occupied West Bank was preferred by 76 per cent; and in case of any agreement between Israel and Palestine, 74 per cent favour US involvement.

In light of these findings, there are several factors which are overlooked, primarily the absence of any importance attached to Palestinian historical narratives. This is contributing overtly to a situation in which any possible outcome will eliminate permanently any concept of Palestinian rights, let alone a semblance of a state. The findings not only represent what Jewish-Israelis are thinking, but also provide proof of the irreparable damage that the international community has inflicted upon the indigenous Palestinians.

Both the two-state and the one-state paradigm presage an identical quagmire. Since the international community has sought consistently to find “solutions” which protect colonialism and its associated violence, Palestinian rights, as well as territory, have been classified as impediments rather than urgent considerations requiring attention over and above Israeli whims. A just solution would entail a reversal of priorities: placing Palestine and Palestinians – who are, after all, facing a very real existential threat – first, while Israel becomes the unfavourable point of contention.

If this does not happen, it should be remembered that, as altruistic as a one-state option might sound, the current poll suggests that much has to be done in respect of replacing imposed international colonial narratives with the authentic Palestinian voice. If the international community continues in the same vein of accommodating Israel almost exclusively, neither option will guarantee Palestinian rights.

Hence, instead of premature discussions that only address the immediate concerns with increasing, and indeed justified, alarm, a more comprehensive approach would entail going back to the early colonisation process which lacerated Palestinian territory and people. Bringing back Palestinian collective memory in an organised manner should form the basis for ensuring that a one-state hypothesis, if ever implemented, does not become a euphemism for complete colonial dominance and the extinction of the Palestinians in their own land.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.