One-State Solution: Equality, Not Gawenda's Delusion

Michael Gawenda, one-time editor of Australia’s top newspaper The Age, has taken to lending his journalistic craft to writing for The Australian.

It’s an incongruous contradiction, given Gawenda once led a fierce rivalry between the two papers. And even though that rivalry still exists, the former Age editor has found himself a new platform to voice what has become a series of deluded narratives.

Gawenda’s latest piece is a nostalgic defence of Israel as a flawed yet miraculous state—revealing a troubling disconnect from the realities on the ground in the Middle East.

As Gawenda laments the perceived impossibility of civil discussions about a one-state solution, he naively exposes the moral and existential crises that have plagued Israel since its inception and now reached an undeniable crescendo. Gawenda dismisses calls for a one-state solution as inherently uncivil, painting anyone who advocates for it as extremists or ideologues. Yet, he ignores the undeniable reality: Israel’s policies of apartheid, occupation, systemic dehumanisation of Palestinians, and accusations of genocide have delegitimised its moral claim to exist as an ethno-nationalist state.

Questioning Israel’s right to exist as it currently operates isn’t an act of hatred; it’s a demand for justice and equality in a region scarred by decades of Israeli expansionism and Palestinian dispossession.

From the Nakba in 1948, when Israel was established, its existence has been marked by the violent displacement of Palestinians.

The Nakba saw over 700,000 Palestinians forcibly removed from their homes to make way for a Jewish-majority state. Far from being a historical anomaly, this dispossession is ongoing, as demonstrated by relentless settlement expansions, home demolitions, and the siege of Gaza.

Israel’s policies have now been internationally recognised as apartheid. The 2021 Human Rights Watch report unequivocally labelled Israeli actions in the occupied territories and within its borders as crimes against humanity, including persecution and apartheid.

This systemic oppression erodes any claim Israel might have to moral legitimacy. A state that privileges one ethnic or religious group while subjugating another cannot be considered a democracy, let alone a miracle.

Gawenda’s plea for a “civil conversation” ignores the power dynamics at play. Discussions about Israel’s existence and its policies are far from theoretical for Palestinians; they’re matters of survival. Framing the debate as uncivil or radical dismisses the lived experiences of millions of Palestinians under occupation or in exile. Civility is a luxury that those who are oppressed can’t afford.

Moreover, Gawenda’s critique of university protests and pro-Palestinian demonstrations as “angry” or “hate-filled” reflects a deep-seated bias. These protests aren’t expressions of baseless animosity but rather responses to decades of systemic violence and erasure. To dismiss them as uncivil is to silence legitimate grievances and demands for accountability.

The idea Israel has forfeited its right to exist isn’t an extreme position. It’s a recognition that states aren’t immutable entities; they must adapt to changing ethical and political standards or face dissolution.

South Africa’s apartheid regime is a historical precedent. The dismantling of apartheid didn’t result in the destruction of South Africa but rather its transformation into a state that, at least nominally, sought equality for all its people.

Israel’s refusal to pursue a just resolution to the conflict—whether through a two-state solution or a binational state—has rendered it a pariah in the eyes of much of the international community. Its ongoing colonisation of Palestine, its refusal to grant equal rights to Palestinians within its borders, and its devastating wars on Gaza have alienated even its staunchest supporters. When a state systematically denies basic human rights to millions, it forfeits its moral claim to existence.

Contrary to Gawenda’s claims, a one-state solution isn’t a call for the erasure of Israel but rather a demand for equality. A single, secular, democratic state where Jews and Palestinians live as equals isn’t only morally justifiable but the only sustainable resolution to the conflict.

Such a state would dismantle the structures of apartheid and privilege, replacing them with a framework rooted in human rights and shared governance.

Gawenda’s romanticisation of Israel as a “deeply flawed miracle” obscures the fundamental issue: Israel’s existence as an exclusivist Jewish state necessitates the perpetual oppression of Palestinians.

A one-state solution wouldn’t erase Jewish identity or culture but rather situate it within a pluralistic society that values all its inhabitants equally.

Gawenda’s conflation of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism is a disingenuous tactic used to deflect criticism of Israel’s policies. Critiquing a state’s actions is not equivalent to hatred of an entire people.

Many Jewish voices worldwide, including organisations like Jewish Voice for Peace, oppose Israel’s actions and support Palestinian liberation.

The real threat to Jewish safety and dignity lies not in pro-Palestinian advocacy but in the perpetuation of Israel’s violent policies. These actions have fuelled global resentment and exacerbated tensions, making Jewish communities around the world more vulnerable.

His refusal to engage with the ethical failings of the Zionist project and his dismissal of alternative solutions do a disservice to the very people he claims to represent. Israel’s future, if it’s to have one, lies not in doubling down on apartheid but in embracing justice and equality for all.

Can Israel be trusted to transform itself into a state deserving to exist?