The Zionist State is DOOMED: One Country For ALL | Josef Avesar

## 1. Introduction and federal plan The central claim emerging from the conversation is stark: the Zionist project in its current institutional form cannot deliver security or justice, and the two-state paradigm has run its course. Faced with entrenched violence, demographic interdependence, and political deadlock, the interlocutors advance a single alternative—an integrated federal solution that preserves local autonomy while creating a common constitutional polity for everyone living between the river and the sea. This is not a scorched-earth proposal to erase existing institutions, but a design for a new, legitimate political architecture intended to reconcile competing claims through law, power-sharing, and democratic safeguards. At its core, the federal plan proposes a three-tiered solution: retain Israeli and Palestinian local institutions while constructing an independent federal government empowered by a secular constitution applicable to the whole territory; ensure equal rights regardless of religion or ethnicity; and bind the new system’s legitimacy to elections embracing roughly 15.5 million inhabitants of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. The federal government would be purpose-built to manage shared concerns—security, citizenship, foreign policy, infrastructure—while local governments preserved sovereignty over internal matters and held veto advantages preventing federal overreach into core local competencies. These ideas aim to produce peace through political design rather than through coercion or ethnic exclusion. ## 2. Israel without a constitution One of the conversation’s most consequential reminders is that Israel still operates without a constitution in the full sense. What exists—basic laws crafted by the Knesset—functions more like statutory scaffolding than a durable charter constraining the state. The practical effect is that the supreme legal rules can be altered by the very legislature whose authority a constitution is supposed to check. The absence of a foundational charter explains a great deal about the institutional fragility that has contributed to cycles of violence and politicized judicial reform. This legal lacuna matters because constitutions do more than name rights: they institutionalize separation of powers, allocate sovereignty, and provide a neutral reference point when political stakeholders clash. The conversation emphasizes that the proposed federal constitution would differ sharply from the Knesset’s basic laws by vesting judicial authority in a court independent of legislative control and by establishing explicit mechanisms to protect minority and individual rights. In short, a written, entrenched constitution is offered as a precondition for any durable, inclusive order in the region. ## 3. Democracy religion and state power A recurring theme is the tension between democracy and a state defined by religio-ethnic identity. The phrase “Jewish democracy” is treated as inherently contradictory when tested against liberal democratic ideals of religious neutrality and equal citizenship. Integrating religion into the machinery of state weakens the normative claim that the state rules on behalf of all citizens. It also makes democratic institutions susceptible to majoritarian capture by religious blocs and undermines the separation of powers needed to protect pluralism. The federal proposal responds to this by insisting on a secular constitution that separates religion from the central organs of state. The design envisages clear institutional boundaries: an independent judiciary drawing legitimacy from the constitution, a parliament accountable to the electorate, and an executive constrained by law. The argument advanced in the discussion is that voting alone is insufficient; durable democracy requires structural checks—judicial review, institutional autonomy, and transparency—so that rights do not depend on temporary electoral fortunes or partisan majorities. ## 4. From Zionism to confederation Personal and political journeys narrated in the conversation underline how an attachment to Zionism can shift toward advocating a confederal solution when realism meets lived experience. The shift described by Josef Avesar was not an abstract renunciation but an empirical realization: Zionism, as historically practiced, has relied on persistent confrontation and exclusion, making sustainable peace impossible. When peace is anathema to the founding ideology’s perceived raison d’être, the political system becomes trapped in perpetual emergency. The confederal turn is framed as an attempt to preserve what matters—security for Jewish communities, cultural autonomy for Palestinians—while removing the structural incentives for permanent enmity. That reconciliation is conceived not as erasing historical narratives but as creating a political form that allows competing identities to coexist under rules they jointly author. Crucially, this confederation model does not demand ideological conversion from Zionists; instead, it proposes institutional innovation that can accommodate the desire for Jewish protection while opening pathways to normalcy and shared governance. ## 5. Support and resistance in 2026 Assessing political feasibility in 2026 produces an ambivalent picture. The conversation concedes that most Israelis today would likely reject a federal government as betrayal—estimates cited suggest around 80 percent resistance among Israelis and roughly 60 percent among Palestinians, primarily because both publics retain strong attachments to their separate national projects. But those headline figures hide important substrata: an identifiable minority in both societies—urban, educated, internationally connected citizens—are already receptive. In numerical terms, even modest majorities within these constituencies could translate into several million potential supporters for a federal process. The pathway to broader acceptance, the discussion insists, will not run through argumentation alone. Convincing die-hard ideologues appears futile; instead, the strategy must target those whose material and existential calculations are shifting—parents contemplating their children’s military obligations, young professionals contemplating emigration, people enmeshed in the daily irrationalities of occupation or conflict. Social and demographic pressures, including waves of emigration and the erosion of internal consensus, may produce the political space necessary for a federal alternative to move from marginal idea to viable agenda. ## 6. Federal design and parliament Deliberations about institutional mechanics get concrete in the federal design sketched during the exchange. The proposed federal constitution contemplates a unicameral parliament of 300 members charged with representing the entire territory, alongside an executive pairing a President and Vice President drawn from the two communities with a rotating seniority every two years. The judiciary would be constitutionally independent, deriving its authority from the constitution rather than from legislature-granted basic laws. A distinctive safeguard built into the design is the veto power granted to existing Israeli and Palestinian governments over federal legislation that violates their sovereignty. This mechanism is intended to reconcile local autonomy with federal authority and to reduce the incentive for explosive unilateralism. The federal structure would also enshrine equality in citizenship and civil rights, eliminating legal distinctions based on religion or nationality in the central civic framework. In short, the architecture seeks to blend majoritarian legitimacy at the federal level with entrenched protections for local self-rule. ## 7. Internal change or outside pressure A key strategic question addressed is whether the transformative change required will come from within or be coerced from the outside. The interlocutors argue that external imposition

The Zionist State is DOOMED: One Country For ALL | Josef Avesar The "Two-State Solution" is now dead in the water, mainly because it would imply maintaining the Zionist state as it is today, and that has proven itself to be not only genocidal but incapable of any form of local integration. The only way out is a One-State Solution with one (federal) political structure for all the peoples of the land between the river and the sea. That is the vision of my guest today, the Israeli-American lawyer Joseph Avesar, president of the Israeli Palestinian Confederation Committee. We speak about a one-state federal plan for Israel and Palestine, the limits of the two- state path, Zionism, democracy, public support, and a shared government model with equal rights, local self-rule, and elected bodies meant to build peace. Links: Israeli Palestinian Confederation: https://ipconfederation.org Neutrality Studies substack: https://pascallottaz.substack.com (Opt in for Academic Section from your profile settings: https://pascallottaz.substack.com/s/academic) Merch: https://neutralitystudies-shop.fourthwall.com Donation: https://neutralitystudies.com/donate Timestamps: 00:00:00 Introduction and federal plan 00:02:11 Israel without a constitution 00:08:39 Democracy religion and state power 00:11:29 From Zionism to confederation 00:15:16 Support and resistance in 2026 00:27:27 Federal design and parliament 00:38:08 Internal change or outside pressure 00:45:42 Two states versus confederation #Pascal Welcome back, everybody, to Neutrality Studies. This is Pascal Lottaz, and today I'm speaking to the Israeli-American lawyer Yosef Avesar, the president of the Israeli-Palestinian Confederation Committee. Yosef, welcome. #Josef Avesar Thank you. Thank you, Pascal. It's a pleasure to be with you. #Pascal Great having you, because you are one of the people who's actually championing one of the ideas that hasn't been very popular for a long time, but that is looking more and more like the only way to go, which is the one-state solution. And you're championing the idea of a federation or a confederation. And I really wanted to hear what you've been doing, how you're envisioning this to be, and how you're assessing the current situation of the horrible violence in Israel-Palestine. #Josef Avesar -- 1 of 15 -- Yeah, so we are thinking that a federal government makes the most sense. We are not proposing the dismantlement of the Israeli government or the Palestinian government. We are proposing creating an independent federal government for the people of Israel and Palestine together — a government that will be based on a constitution, a secular constitution, equality for the people of Palestine and Israel, based on legitimacy. The legitimacy would be given to it through elections by the people of Israel and Palestine. That includes the geographic area of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. And this government will be elected by the people of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza — 15.5 million people. #Pascal 15.5, like all of them that are currently living inside these very fuzzy borders that we know as Israel. But in your vision, of course, that would mean basically abolishing the current Israeli constitution, right? And replacing it with a new one. #Josef Avesar Israel does not have a constitution. It never had a constitution. Ben-Gurion suggested in his Declaration of Independence that Israel would have a constitution by October of 1948. He declared the independence of Israel on May 15. Israel never had a constitution, so it does not require the abolishment of the Israeli constitution because it doesn't have one, and it does not require the abolishment of the Israeli government. It would be an independent government for the people of Palestine and Israel that would give the Israeli and the Palestinian governments a veto power over legislation that it passes which violates their sovereignty. So if the federal government passes legislation that violates the sovereignty of the Palestinian or the Israeli governments, those governments will have a veto power over that legislation. #Pascal That's a very good point. You know, there are a couple of states that use different setups. Like the Germans, they call their constitution Basic Law. The Austrians, they call the most fundamental aspects of their legal codes constitutional laws, but not constitutions themselves. What is the current Israeli situation? What fundamental premises are actually built upon for the legislative acts? #Josef Avesar Well, the Israeli system is based on a Knesset, a Knesset that is elected by the people with different parties, and also an executive branch. So the Knesset is the legislative branch, but they also have the executive branch, which is the government. But they don't have a constitution. The problem with the Israeli system is that it doesn't really have separation of power, because all the people that are in the executive branch, in the government, are also in the legislative branch. So it's not really—it's the same people. They move from one building to another, but that does not create separation of -- 2 of 15 -- power. It's the same people passing the legislation and the same people executing the legislation. And they also have what you mentioned, basic laws—basic laws that, again, were created by the Knesset. The problem with that is that a constitution has to be created in order to protect the people from the legislator. #Pascal Yep. #Josef Avesar And so when the legislator creates legislation and calls it whatever fancy names you want to call it, they can even call it a constitution. But they don't call it a constitution; they call it basic laws. But it defies the basic meaning of a constitution, which is a set of principles to protect the people from the legislators. So in Israel, it's the opposite. It's the legislator protecting itself from the people. #Pascal Yeah, and we are seeing what kind of levels of violence this can produce, because a lot of the people that are under the direct control, of course, of that legislator, have not even a say in the vote. I mean, I talked to Ofer Kasif a year and a half ago, and he made the point there are at least three categories of Palestinians that are suffering in different types of categories: the ones with Israeli passports, the ones without, and then the ones in Gaza that are now under the horrible violence. And that would be something the constitution, in your view, would have to address and protect. #Josef Avesar Oh, yeah. The Constitution, it's already written. You can read it at ipconfederation.org. It's a secular constitution. It treats everyone, regardless of their religion, ethnicity, or any difference. It treats everyone the same regardless of their location. So we are speaking about a constitution that applies to the people in Gaza, the West Bank, and Israel, that creates a separate, independent legislative branch with 300 parliament members, an executive branch with a President and Vice President—one Palestinian, one Israeli—rotating every two years, and a judicial branch that receives its power from the Constitution, not from the parliament. In Israel, the Supreme Court gets its power from the Knesset. And the Knesset constantly wants to take power away from the creation that it created, which is the Supreme Court. It doesn't like the Supreme Court. So this is why Israel is falling apart, because it doesn't have a constitution. It doesn't have the rules of the game. #Pascal You know... -- 3 of 15 -- #Pascal Some people equate democracy with the act of voting. But to me, actually, the separation of powers is an even more fundamental aspect of a democracy. Why is it, in your view, that to this day, the media still calls Israel the only democracy in the Middle East? I mean, it's certainly a propaganda term, but the democratic setup of Israel itself was never as good or never as firm as the democracies in Europe or in North America, were they? #Josef Avesar I'm not that familiar. I'm not a political scientist. But I can tell you there are huge problems with so- called Israel's democracy. First of all, the term "Jewish democracy" is an oxymoron. The whole purpose of a democracy is separation between government and religion. Basically, when the idea of a democracy came about, the people said, why should we have religious people dictate to us based on wisdom that they acquired from years and years ago? Why not have people elected right now making decisions based on the current knowledge that we have? The first thing that democracy is about is separation between government and religion. Well, Israel is a Jewish state, so it integrates religion with government. Voting is necessary, of course, but it's one of the elements of democracy. You need a constitution. Basically, a constitution is the rules that everyone agrees upon. So when there is a problem in the future, you go to the rules and you say, well, this is what we agreed upon. You can't change the rules. This is what we all agreed upon at the beginning. So you need to have a constitution. You need to have separation between the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. You need the judicial to get its power from the constitution so it's not afraid of the legislative or the executive. It cannot be fired. And you need transparency. Transparency is important. And all of that is created by separation of powers. #Pascal Now, the last 30 years, ever since Oslo, everybody was talking about a two-state solution, two-state solution, two-state solution everywhere. And even to this day, people keep saying, like, no, we want a two-state solution with a separate Palestine and a separate Israel. How come that you—maybe tell me—when did you start your activities, and how come that you envisioned a one-state solution instead of what was en vogue for so long? #Josef Avesar Well, personally, I was a Zionist before I became anti-Zionist. And I was a Zionist by default because I was born in Israel. Most people that are born in Israel are Zionists because they think that the whole world is our enemy, or potentially so. This is what we learned from day one, you know. But once I started to think objectively about Zionism, about the fact that Israel has had constant wars -- 4 of 15 -- for 77 years, and the fact that so many Israelis have lost their lives, so many families have been destroyed, so many Israelis have been injured, and there is no vision for the future. It has no vision. It doesn't know. Israelis can't tell you, well, in 10 years we're going to have peace, because it's a house of cards. They're afraid to look into it. But once I started to look into it, I became a realist. And as a realist, you realize that Zionism has been harmful to the Jews and the Palestinians. By the way, Zionism was harmful to the Jews before it was harmful to the Palestinians. And I believe in equality. I believe in the separation between government and religion. So this whole thing fell apart very, very quickly. But then you want to be realistic. You say, okay, well, you came to that conclusion, but most people in Israel do not come to that conclusion. What's the honest, realistic solution? In my opinion, the honest, realistic solution is not to fight those Israelis who believe in a Jewish state. But to acknowledge them and to say, well, fine, you believe in a Jewish state, you believe in military protection of the Jewish people forever, we're not going to take that away from you. But peace is the best security. We can all admit that, I mean, acknowledge that. If you have peace, you don't have... you don't need an army. But let the Israelis keep their military, their army, everything they want. Same for the Palestinians. But let's have an honest system of a federal government for the people of Palestine and Israel to work together for the sole purpose of making peace. Because peace is the only solution. There is no other solution. You can't defeat