I thought this was a great question:
The questioner expanded the concept for me as follows:
It seems as though people automatically assume that a one-state solution would mean an end to the idea of a Jewish state because the demographics would favor non-Jews. But if you enshrined into the Constitution the idea that Jewish immigration could not be limited, that the observation of a certain number of Jewish holidays had to be protected, and that otherwise there could be no discrimination based on religion in any other aspect of life, wouldn’t that be enough to make it a Jewish state that was also a secular, pluralist democracy capable of accommodating all of the various religions and ethnicities that live there? It seems like the idea of a country that provides a guaranteed refuge for the world’s Jews and a culture that allows Jewish life to flourish can exist without a Jewish majority if it’s enshrined in a state’s constitution.
It was clear to me that the questioner was seeing this from an American perspective and bias, still, the nucleus of the concept here was very good and it gave me an opportunity to put forward the concept that it’s not a numbers game–Israel is the indigenous territory of the Jews, always was and always will be, no matter who is living there. Here is my response:
That’s an excellent question! The fact is, it doesn’t matter whether or not the Jewish State has a Jewish majority. The point is that this is the indigenous territory of the Jews and that is something that is immutable. No one can change this reality and certainly, no document or legislation can change this reality.
The territory belongs to all Jews that ever were, are, or will be. Even if instead of 7 million Jews, you’ve got 7 million Eskimos living in Israel.
The main issue would be to secure the Jewish people in their own land so that they can have productive lives, govern themselves, and defend themselves from all outside threats.