Professor Alterman, please drop the standard Zionist narrative of the “naivete” of the Ihud group [which supported binationalism before the founding of the state of Israel]. They were not “naive”; they simply were a tiny minority who saw that a) the Palestinian Arabs had no less a right, and in some sense, more right to statehood in Palestine than Eastern European Jewish settlers (of the over-forty Zionist signatories of the Declaration of Independence, only one was a native of Palestine);
b) the declaration of a Jewish ethnic state against the wishes of the native Palestinian Arab majority would plunge Palestine in an unending war — and the Ihud group’s belief has been borne out by history. The Palestinians were not a partner to Ihud because they felt that the Zionist settlers had no national claims on Palestine; at best they were willing to give the Jews collective minority rights. The Ihud group argued against statehood, and when statehood was a done deal, for federation with weakened national sovereignty.
Naive? Not any more. With the two-state solution long dead, the most probable scenario is the current status quo for a long time, followed by some sort of one-state binatonalist solution.
Judah Magnes wasn’t naive. He was simply ahead of his time.