Blood Libel #15 | “There should be a one-state solution. Jews can live peacefully within a Muslim Majority.”
Anti-Zionist:
Let’s be honest — Israel already controls everything from the river to the sea. It’s already a one-state apartheid system, so just make it one state with equal rights.
Pro-Zionist:
You say Israel controls everything — so tell me: who governs Gaza? Who runs the Palestinian education system, police, and parliament in Ramallah?
(They might try to blur the lines — press them.)
The truth is more complicated than slogans:
Gaza is run by Hamas — a terrorist group elected by Palestinians and now ruling by force.
Area A & B in the West Bank are governed by the Palestinian Authority under the Oslo Accords, which both sides agreed to.
Israel does not “control everything” — and it offered statehood multiple times, only to be rejected.
Now let’s talk about the one-state idea.
In that “one state”:
Jews would become a vulnerable minority in a region that expelled nearly a million Jews from Arab lands in the last century.
The Jewish identity of the state — its calendar, language, and public life — would be dismantled.
The right of return for millions of Palestinians would be a demographic weapon to erase Israel — not to promote peace.
Equal rights are essential — but so is national self-determination. You wouldn’t ask Kurds, Tibetans, or Armenians to surrender their independence.
So let’s be clear:
This isn’t about equality. It’s about undoing the existence of the one Jewish state — and pretending it’s justice.
Anti-Zionist:
But an ethnostate is immoral! Muslims and Jews should share Israel and live together in peace.
Pro-Zionist:
Can you name a single Muslim-majority country in the region where Jews currently live freely and in large numbers?
(Pause — they can’t.)
Because the sad truth is:
In Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and Iran, ancient Jewish communities were expelled, murdered, or terrorized out of existence. In fact, Jews in Iraq, Egypt, Libya, and Syria tried to live peacefully for centuries — until they were stripped of rights, massacred in pogroms, or expelled after 1948. Over 850,000 Jews were ethnically cleansed from Arab lands — and no one offered them return, reparations, or refugee status.
Today, the only country in the Middle East where Jews live freely is Israel — and it’s also the only country where Muslims have full democratic rights.
Let’s be clear:
Jews already tried living as minorities under Muslim rule for centuries — sometimes in peace, often under persecution, forced conversions, pogroms, and dhimmi status.
A “one-state” solution would mean the end of Jewish sovereignty, and likely, the destruction of the Jewish people’s only safe haven.
And let me ask — if the goal is peaceful coexistence, why not start by asking Arab states to welcome Jews back into their lands? Or by asking the Palestinian Authority to stop paying salaries to terrorists?
The two-state solution was always meant to ensure freedom and self-determination for both peoples.
A one-state solution is not peace. It’s erasure disguised as inclusion.
Anti-Zionist:
But Jews and Muslims coexisted peacefully in Islamic Spain. We can go back to that kind of coexistence — we don’t need a Jewish state.
Pro-Zionist:
You’re referring to the so-called “Golden Age” of al-Andalus — but can we be honest about what that actually was?
(They’ll likely describe it as tolerant or enlightened.)
Yes, there were periods where Jews were tolerated in Spain. But that “tolerance” came under the dhimmi system, where Jews lived as second-class subjects:
Forced to pay special taxes.
Banned from bearing arms or holding political power.
Often required to wear distinctive clothing and live under legal and religious restrictions.
And when things turned?
Jews were massacred in Granada in 1066 — long before European pogroms.
In later centuries, the Almohads gave Jews the choice to convert, flee, or die.
So no — it wasn’t peaceful coexistence. It was conditional tolerance that ended in persecution and exile.
If history teaches us anything, it’s this:
Jewish safety must never again depend on the kindness of a majority.
That’s why Israel exists — not to dominate others, but to ensure Jews never again have to beg for protection.
BEYOND THE TALKING POINTS
To evaluate the thesis — “Jews have coexisted and lived in peace in a majority Muslim country” — we must distinguish between periods of relative coexistence and true equality or sustained peace. The historical record shows that while there were intermittent eras of tolerance and even flourishing, the overall pattern was one of subjugation, legal inferiority, and episodic violence. Let’s examine the evidence by region and era:
Periods of Relative Coexistence
1. Al-Andalus (Muslim Spain, 8th–12th centuries)
Often cited as a “Golden Age” for Jews, especially under the Umayyads in Córdoba.
Jewish thinkers like Maimonides, Judah Halevi, and Samuel ibn Naghrillah rose to prominence in philosophy, medicine, and politics.
Jews served in government, wrote in Arabic, and interacted intellectually with Muslims and Christians.
BUT:
This period was short-lived. By the mid-12th century, the Almohads, a more fundamentalist regime, conquered the region and persecuted both Jews and Christians, forcing conversions or exile (e.g., Maimonides fled).
2. Ottoman Empire (14th–20th centuries)
After being expelled from Spain in 1492, many Sephardic Jews were welcomed into the Ottoman Empire.
Jews were allowed to settle in Istanbul, Thessaloniki, and Izmir, maintain their communal institutions, and practice their religion.
Some Jews rose to prominence in commerce, medicine, and diplomacy.
BUT:
Jews lived under dhimmi status (protected but inferior), paid special taxes (jizya), and were restricted in clothing, professions, and legal testimony.
While rarely massacred en masse, Jews were always second-class subjects and vulnerable to mob violence or political shifts.
Evidence of Systemic Discrimination and Violence
The Dhimmi System (Sharia-based legal inferiority)
Jews (and Christians) were “People of the Book” and granted protected status but with explicit legal and social inferiority:
Forbidden to build new synagogues or repair old ones.
Required to wear identifying clothing (e.g., yellow badges centuries before Nazi Germany).
Could not ride horses or carry weapons.
Could not testify against Muslims in court.
Subject to ritualized humiliations (e.g., must yield in the street, prohibited from building homes taller than Muslims’).
Their security was contingent on submission and often revoked when convenient to rulers.
Massacres, Pogroms, and Forced Conversions
Fez, Morocco (1033) – over 6,000 Jews killed in a single massacre.
Granada (1066) – over 1,500 Jewish families killed by a Muslim mob; vizier Joseph ibn Naghrela was crucified.
Yemen (1679) – Jews expelled from cities and forced into ghetto life in rural areas.
Baghdad (1941, Farhud) – pogrom under pro-Nazi Iraqi regime; ~180 Jews murdered, 1,000 wounded.
Libya (1945, 1948, 1967) – repeated anti-Jewish riots, synagogues burned, Jews murdered and expelled.
Decline and Exodus in the 20th Century
From 1948–1970, nearly all Jewish communities in Arab and Muslim countries disappeared due to persecution and state-backed expulsions following the creation of Israel:
Iraq: ~150,000 Jews in 1948 → < 10 today.
Egypt: ~80,000 → ~10 today.
Syria: ~30,000 → gone.
Libya, Yemen, Algeria: Jewish populations wiped out or fled under threat.
These were not peaceful coexisting societies. Jews were scapegoated for Israel’s existence and stripped of citizenship, property, and basic rights.
Comparison with Christian Europe
Christian Europe was also deeply antisemitic — forced conversions, ghettos, Inquisition, pogroms.
But by the 18th–20th centuries, Jewish emancipation occurred in many Christian countries (e.g., France, Germany, UK, USA).
No such emancipation ever occurred in the Islamic world before modern Western intervention or postcolonial secular regimes.
Thesis Partially True, But Fundamentally Misleading
Verdict: Jews have coexisted in Muslim-majority countries — but never as equals, rarely in peace, and only temporarily. Coexistence came with systemic inferiority, legal subjugation, and the constant threat of violence or expulsion.
To suggest that Jews “lived in peace” in the Muslim world ignores this history and the ultimate disappearance of nearly every Jewish community in the Islamic Middle East.
Peaceful coexistence happened not because of Islamic rule, but in spite of it — during brief windows of tolerance when political leaders were pragmatic rather than fanatical.
And, coexistence between Jews and Muslims is less likely to succeed today than 100 years ago — not more. Despite occasional progress and normalization between states, the broader cultural, religious, and ideological gap has widened due to:
the rise of political Islam,
antisemitic indoctrination across the Arab world,
the disappearance of nearly all indigenous Jewish communities in Muslim countries,
and the radicalization of anti-Zionism into a global antisemitic movement.
Let’s Compare: Then vs. Now
100 Years Ago (circa 1925)
~1 million Jews lived across the Arab and Muslim world — in Baghdad, Cairo, Damascus, Tehran, Tunis, Casablanca, and beyond.
While under dhimmi restrictions, Jews often played key roles in business, medicine, and trade.
Intercommunal tensions existed, but some Jews were integrated into urban and cultural life.
Political Islam had not yet fully merged with antisemitic European ideologies.
Zionism was growing, but the Jewish state had not yet been declared.
Bottom line then: Coexistence was unequal, but in many places still functioned. The possibility of a shared society seemed plausible in some contexts.
What Changed in the Last 100 Years?
The Total Collapse of Jewish Presence in Muslim Lands
Since 1948, over 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled Muslim countries.
Today, fewer than 5,000 Jews remain in the entire Arab world — down from over a million.
These weren’t just “refugees.” These were ancient communities — some dating to before Islam — wiped out within a generation.
This is not coexistence. It’s erasure.
Rise of Radical Islamist Ideology
Starting with Hassan al-Banna (Muslim Brotherhood) and later Sayyid Qutb, Islamist ideology absorbed European-style antisemitism (from the Nazis, Protocols of the Elders of Zion, etc.).
Today, groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, and the IRGC don’t just oppose Israel — they frame the conflict in theological and genocidal terms.
Antisemitic tropes have become mainstream in sermons, schoolbooks, and media across many Muslim-majority states — especially in the Middle East and North Africa.
The Weaponization of Anti-Zionism
Anti-Israel rhetoric in the Muslim world increasingly blurs the line between criticizing policies and denying Jewish legitimacy or humanity.
“Zionist” is often used as a euphemism for “Jew,” and antisemitic libels (e.g., blood libels, global control tropes) have been reintroduced under the guise of opposing Israel.
Even Jews outside of Israel are often accused of dual loyalty or collective guilt.
Islamist Political Power
In 1925, most of the Arab world was under colonial rule or secular monarchy.
Today, political Islam dominates many governments or opposition groups:
Iran’s theocracy regularly threatens genocide.
Turkey under Erdoğan has turned anti-Israel rhetoric into political theater.
Qatar funds Hamas and hosts extremist clerics.
Where Islamism gains ground, Jewish coexistence becomes impossible.
What About the Exceptions?
1. Abraham Accords (2020–present)
Opened normalization between Israel and UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan.
Led to cultural exchanges, business deals, and even limited Jewish revival in some Gulf states.
Caveat: These are state-level, top-down agreements — not grassroots coexistence.
In many cases, antisemitic material still exists in textbooks or media.
These deals are fragile, often driven by shared opposition to Iran more than deep cultural change.
2. Indonesia, Albania, Azerbaijan
These Muslim-majority countries have small Jewish populations and no formal conflict with Israel.
There have been moments of peaceful coexistence and even protection of Jews during WWII (Albania is a notable case).
But:
The Jewish populations are tiny and largely disconnected from the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
These are the exceptions — not the rule.
Conclusion
This narrative revives one of the oldest and most dangerous narratives of all: that Jewish sovereignty is the problem, and peace will come when Jews give it up.
That’s not progress. That’s regression. That’s not imagining a new future — it’s forgetting why Zionism existed in the first place.
Talk of a secular, binational state is not forward-thinking. It’s a return to pre-1948 statelessness, when Jews lived at the mercy of others.
This proposed solution is the ultimate zero-sum: one side — the Jews — gives up their national home, their democratic majority, their Law of Return, their control over Jerusalem, and trusts that the goodwill of a hostile region will protect them. That’s not coexistence. That’s capitulation dressed in moral language.
The idea of a “shared space” between Jews and Arabs pre-dates the creation of the state of israel. But let’s remember how that ended:
The 1929 Hebron massacre
The 1936–39 Arab Revolt
The Mufti of Jerusalem’s alliance with Hitler
This wasn’t peaceful coexistence. It was a powder keg — and the moment Jews sought independence, violence exploded.
There is no equality under a shared state. Where in the Middle East — other than Israel — do we see a functioning secular democracy today?
What would prevent Hamas or a future Islamist party from winning elections in this binational state?
What constitution would preserve women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, academic freedom, and religious pluralism when the ruling coalition includes factions that fundamentally oppose them?
There is no precedent — none — where two national groups with generations of bloodshed between them have merged into a single state peacefully. Yugoslavia. Rwanda. Lebanon. Sudan. Cyprus. All ended in war, partition, or genocide. Why would Israel be the exception?
The two-state solution may be damaged, but it remains the only viable framework that honors the rights of both peoples — if, and only if, the Arab world is willing to accept Jewish sovereignty as legitimate. That hasn’t happened yet.
The idea that we should abandon old narratives is a good idea. I agree. So let’s abandon this one: That Jewish power is inherently suspect. And this one: That peace will come if Jews just stop defending themselves. And this one: That the world’s only Jewish state must dissolve itself in order to be moral.
That’s not a break from history — it’s a return to its most dangerous patterns.
Zionism was the true rejection of old narratives — the belief that Jews should no longer live at the whim of others. It created the only country in the region where Arabs can vote freely, where gay people can live openly, where courts defend minority rights. Is it perfect? No. But it is a miracle of survival and progress in a region that has known neither.
The real moral imperative isn’t to dismantle that. It’s to build peace around it — with secure borders, mutual recognition, and a demilitarized Palestinian entity that can govern responsibly and coexist peacefully.
Peace will require compromise. But the compromise cannot be Israel’s existence.
We all want dignity for both peoples. But dignity begins with reality. And the reality is that Jewish safety, identity, and flourishing depend on sovereignty — not surrender.
Herb’s response is intellectually coherent, but historically and strategically naïve — and the risks to Jews in a one-state solution are not theoretical. They are existential. Here’s a breakdown of what’s at stake and why his proposal, though well-intentioned, is dangerously out of touch with both reality and history.
The Risks to Jews in a One-State “Solution”
1. Demographic Erosion = End of Jewish Self-Determination
In a single state, Jews would likely become a minority or near-minority within a generation — especially with any form of “right of return” for millions of Palestinians. This would mean:
The end of a Jewish state, as Jews lose the democratic ability to shape their own future.
A reversal of the core Zionist goal: safety, sovereignty, and self-determination for the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland.
This isn’t theoretical. Jewish minority status has never been safe — not in Europe, not in Arab lands, not in Persia, not in Russia. History speaks for itself.
2. Breakdown of Civil Rights Under Shared Governance
Herb envisions a “binational democratic secular state.” Sounds noble. But ask yourself:
What secular democracy currently exists in the Middle East outside of Israel?
What happens when Islamist parties win elections (as Hamas did in 2006)?
How long before freedom of religion, LGBTQ rights, women’s rights, academic freedom, and cultural pluralism disappear under “shared” rule?
Equal rights can’t be guaranteed in a confederation with ideologies that fundamentally reject pluralism and liberalism. The PA and Hamas both enforce repressive, anti-democratic norms.
3. No Precedent for a Functional One-State Model in Conflict Zones
Herb romanticizes coexistence under the British Mandate, but:
That era was marked by pogroms, including the 1929 Hebron massacre and the 1936–39 Arab Revolt.
Jews lived under constant threat, with no protection, no sovereignty, no army.
Coexistence worked when Jews were a tiny minority and politically irrelevant. The moment Jews asserted independence, Arab violence exploded.
There’s zero precedent in modern history where two deeply antagonistic national groups with bloodshed between them have shared a state peacefully. Look at:
Yugoslavia
Rwanda
Lebanon
Cyprus
Sudan
All attempts at binational unity ended in war, partition, or genocide.
4. Erasure of Jewish Identity by “Secularizing” the State
A Jewish state doesn’t mean theocracy. It means a nation-state — like 30 others (France = French, Japan = Japanese, etc.).
Herb proposes dismantling the national character of the world’s only Jewish state — in the name of universalism. But Jews are not safe in the universalist fantasies of others. They are safest when they control their own fate.
Removing the Jewish character of the state is not a path to peace — it’s a path to cultural erasure, religious marginalization, and the loss of historical justice.
5. It Would Reward Terror and Rejectionism
A one-state model would signal to the Arab world and the anti-Zionist left: You never had to accept Israel. Just wait long enough, and the Jewish state will self-dismantle.
That’s not reconciliation. That’s surrender. It validates decades of terrorism, incitement, and maximalist demands. And it teaches future enemies that time + pressure = erasure.
Bottom Line
This sounds admirable. But this isn’t a new idea — it’s a recycled dream that ignores why Zionism was necessary in the first place: because Jews without sovereignty are powerless, and powerless Jews become victims.
A one-state solution is not peace. It is the end of Jewish sovereignty, the death of the Zionist dream, and a return to statelessness and dependence on the goodwill of others.
And history — from Spain to Russia to the Arab world — shows where that leads.