one state solution

No one is proposing anarchy -- the no-state solution. Mathematically, that leaves us with the one-state solution. More precisely, it leaves us with many possible one-state solutions, and plenty to discuss.
The only possible solution to the problem of Israel and Palestine, it is generally assumed, is to recognize the two peoples and divide the land between them. The only question, it appears, is where to draw the line and what happens to people who end up on the wrong side.
There is no ethnicity to suffering. The more we delay this understanding, the more we delay peacemaking and democratic state building. No one wins.
The United States should insist on negotiations toward a two-state solution now and that means applying pressure on Israel and the Palestinians to start talking.
It may well be that the Israel-Palestine conflict is but a reflection of the Middle East's inherent instability. Unfortunately this means that the area's fate, and that includes Israel's, will be determined by blind historical forces rather than by foresight and planning.
The majority of American Jews understand what Allen West and Joe Walsh fail to see: Building a viable Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel is the only way to secure Israel's future as a Jewish homeland and a democracy.
To take the one-state option seriously, due diligence regarding its feasibility is required. This simply means asking how it can be achieved through the following questions.
Would not a truly democratic state joining Jews and Palestinians become the "light unto nations" that Israel was always meant to be?
The implications of this conundrum -- desire for a Jewish state and a demographic challenge to that concept -- are evident and unpalatable: either the Palestinian residents would be denied equal rights or there would be a process of finding a way to get Palestinians to leave the state.