Palestine Israel: Implementing A One-State Solution
It's time that the nations of the world (or at least the influential western nations) accept the reality that all the lands that constituted 1920-1948 Mandatory Palestine should be formally recognised as a single nation-state; ideally called Palestine Israel or Israel-Palestine, but more realistically called Israel.
In other words, the never-viable notion of a two-nation-state division of 'Israel' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eretz_Israel) should be dropped as a viable solution in favour of the promotion of a liberal bicultural (or multicultural) nation-state. The role model for change could be South Africa.
Jewish and Non-Jewish intellectuals (such as Hans Kohn, Shlomo Sand and Yanis Varoufakis) – on the political left – have been arguing for this 'one-state-solution' for over 100 years. It's just that their voices have always been deamplified by those on the political centre and the political right. (On the centre, we think of people like Joe Biden, Keir Starmer, and their predecessors. On the right, we may consider former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, a leader in the 1940s of the openly fascist Lehi, yet a moderate by today's Israeli political standards.)
Shlomo Sand outlines the history of the arguments for a single 'binational' state in his 2024 book Israel-Palestine: Federation or Apartheid? His vision, which is not quite what I favour, emphasises binationalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/binationalism), and looks towards these successful liberal examples of bi- or multi- nationalism: Canada, Belgium, Switzerland.
The better framing of this approach, I believe, is biculturalism; though even that is not problem-free, because it is an exclusive concept. What I think would work best for Palestine Israel is also the same as what would work best for Aotearoa New Zealand: multiculturalism with a bicultural (treaty) emphasis. (Ireland could have become something similar, as in Irish rugby; but it went down a failed two-state path, and experienced two substantial civil wars last century.) The ideal is for Palestine Israel to become a liberal democracy in which all people born within its borders become citizens with equal citizenship rights; a nation state which commits to both the domestic and international norms of liberal democracy.
(In a bicultural nation-state, the principal divider is religion; normally people's religious loyalties are discrete, meaning that being, say, a Muslim or Jew or Christian is mutually exclusive. The word 'national' is increasingly used in the 21st century as it was in the 19th century; to refer to a 'people' or a 'race' rather than to relate to a territory defined by its borders and its sovereign institutions. Ethnicity – the better word is 'ancestry – is not a discrete concept such as 'religion'; individual people have multiple ancestries, and should not be required to identify as one over another.)
How can this be achieved?
First, we should note that the status quo in Eretz Israel is at least as unacceptable as Apartheid South Africa was to our world of mostly 'internationally-civilised' nation-states. (An internationally civilised state is one that accepts agreed norms in the ways that it relates to other nation states, meaning that it does not indulge in offensive hard-power geopolitics – such as 'gunboat diplomacy'; and it practises cultural equality. Terrorism is understood as criminality. Such a state does not have to be a 'democracy' in the Westminster or American sense; but it should meet open liberal standards in the ways it treats its resident denizens – non-citizens – and it should subscribe to international treaties on matters such as climate sustainability and nuclear energy and election authenticity.)
Second, this desired outcome will not come about by force. The community of liberal nations should simply recognise Eretz Israel as a nation state, based ideally on the prior borders of Mandatory Palestine.
While there should be no demands, such a new nation-state would be risking discriminatory sanctions if it abuses liberal norms; in particular if it implements laws (including civil-marriage laws) that discriminate on the basis of sex, religion, or ancestry. Again, the obvious model is Apartheid South Africa, and the ways that South Africa was excluded from international sport so long as it implemented laws which discriminated on the basis of ethnicity. (Palestinians and many Israelis have Levantine ethnicity. Many Israelis have European, African or Asian co-ethnicity; that non-indigeneity should never be held against them. Nor should the indigeneity of the Palestinians.)
In recognising Eretz Israel as Israel-Palestine (or even just under the name 'Israel'), a Levantine nation state, Israel's nuclear status should be addressed and normalised. (Likewise, India and Pakistan should be pressured to join the 'nuclear club'. One of the most problematic regional asymmetries at present is the advanced nuclear-status of Israel versus the embryonic nuclear status of Iran; Israel at present hides behind its non-membership of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons to make it seem that Iran is a bigger nuclear threat to the world than Israel is.)
Recognition of Eretz Israel as a sovereign nation state, under any name, should come with overt expectations of democracy, amnesty, truth, reconciliation, and press freedom. There should be no formal or informal mechanism of 'settling scores', no matter how reprehensible anyone's past or present behaviour has been. Truth trumps vengeance cloaked as 'accountability'.
Lebanon was an initially successful, but now largely failed, version of a similar attempt at creating a tolerant multicultural nation state in the Levant. Lebanon's main problem was its belligerent southern neighbour. Israel-Palestine would not have Israel as a neighbour.
Abandon the naïve two-state solution
There is no way a Palestinian nation-state can be viable. At the very best it could become like a mini-Pakistan or mini-Bangladesh; and even that would take decades. (And the last Israeli prime minister to formalise a two-state future – Yitzhak Rabin – was assassinated in 1995, having achieved a Nobel Peace Prize in 1994.) The two-state-solution agenda seems to be more about deescalating sufficiently for the Palestine issue to disappear from its media prominence; and not at all about ending a forever war which began in 1948.
The present forever war – now in its hottest phase – followed a brutal war for Israeli-Jewish independence and non-Jewish expulsion waged by fascist and non-fascist 'non-state actors' from 1939 to 1948 against the British 'protectors'. That, in turn, followed a prior Palestinian insurrection against the British and the settlers from 1936-1939 (though overshadowed in the international media by the Spanish Civil War), which in its turn followed the 1929 Palestine riots. That's 96 years of escalating forever violence.
In Summary
Recognise a new expanded state, with or without a new name, but with certain (unenforceable, but well-publicised) expectations. This expectation should be a multi-cultural Levantine sovereign state, embracing adherents of the three Abrahamic faiths (as well as people of other religions, or no religion, as citizens; people born in Israel or Palestine, and documented immigrants): Levantine Jews, Levantine Muslims, Levantine Christians, plus others. All Israelis. And all Palestinians.
Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.
Keith Rankin
Political Economist, Scoop Columnist
Keith Rankin taught economics at Unitec in Mt Albert since 1999. An economic historian by training, his research has included an analysis of labour supply in the Great Depression of the 1930s, and has included estimates of New Zealand's GNP going back to the 1850s.
Keith believes that many of the economic issues that beguile us cannot be understood by relying on the orthodox interpretations of our social science disciplines. Keith favours a critical approach that emphasises new perspectives rather than simply opposing those practices and policies that we don't like.
Keith retired in 2020 and lives with his family in Glen Eden, Auckland.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
5 hours ago
- Scoop
The House: Parliament's Reaction To The Middle East Crisis
Parliament's week began with an assurance that the safety of New Zealanders in the Middle East is the first priority. The tense situation in the Middle East, and indeed, intervention from one of our allies is something that no government could ignore, so when the sitting day began on Tuesday, the first item of business was not Question Time, but a Ministerial Statement from Foreign Minister Winston Peters, followed by debate and questions. Peters emphasised that the government's main focus amidst the tension in the region was to get New Zealanders out of harm's way. "The government is committed to supporting New Zealanders caught up in this crisis," Peters told the House. "Since the beginning of the conflict, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided around the clock, 24/7 consular support to New Zealanders in Israel and Iran-and to their families back home in New Zealand - and will continue to do so." The statement was also peppered with lines advocating for three D words: diplomacy, de-escalation, and dialogue - treading a delicate line of not signalling outright support for either side, citing New Zealand's limited influence in the Middle East. Perhaps as a reaction to accusations of fence-sitting in recent days, Peters finished the statement by offering a list of what New Zealand does and does not want in the region. "We want de-escalation and dialogue. We want a two-state solution, with Israelis and Palestinians living in security and peace side-by-side. We want humanitarian aid to get to those who need it. Ultimately, we want peace. "What we do not want is New Zealanders in harm's way. We do not want ever escalating rounds of military action. We do not want a nuclear Iran. We do not want Hamas holding hostages and terrorising Palestinian and Israeli civilians alike. And we do not want Israel occupying Palestinian land. "Ultimately, we do not want another generation of young people in the Middle East, scarred by conflict, replicating the enmities of today and yesterday. This cycle of conflict, now generations old, must end." Statement benefits Ministerial Statements are used by the government to brief Parliament-and by extension the public-on an unfolding situation or event and explain the government's plan of action in response to it. They resemble a press conference wherein a minister delivers a statement, followed by questions or comments from MPs from other parties, generally spokespersons on the relevant topic. There is a tactical benefit for governments in getting in first and delivering a Ministerial Statement (instead of waiting for the Opposition to request an Urgent Debate), in that you can lead the messaging, and so try to control it. Equally though, there is a benefit to the Opposition from Ministerial Statements - because they are able to both make comments and ask questions. Ministerial Statements are more flexible than either Question Time or Urgent Debates. The Q & A Labour leader Chris Hipkins generally agreed with Peters' advocation for diplomacy over the conflict saying "there is much in the statement by our Minister of Foreign Affairs that I completely agree with". "We also welcome the possibility of a ceasefire. We also endorse the non-expulsion of ambassadors from countries who have taken actions that we disagree with. "If we want international diplomacy, if we want international dialogue, the role of diplomats has never been more important. We also want to acknowledge the New Zealand Defence Force deployment, and they go with our full support." Opinions diverged over whether New Zealand should have called the US strike on Iran a violation of the UN Charter, with Hipkins asking Peters whether the government believed the strike was in line with the Charter's clause on the right to self defence. Peter continued to tread a delicate line in his reply. "Unlike some, we wait till we get the evidence, and we've said it constantly day-after-day that instead of rushing to judgement, as we were asked this morning by the media, 'Has peace broken out?' - 'No,' we said, 'We're going to trust but verify,' and when we sought to verify we found that what they were saying by way of questioning was wrong. "And in this case, we're going to find out the facts as time goes by. There'll be some days yet-maybe sometime yet-before we can establish as to the immediacy of the problem and the level of deterioration with respect to the Iran position on gaining nuclear capability in terms of weapons." While Hipkins wasn't quite able to milk the committal he wanted from Peters, the two weren't especially adversarial in their exchange. That mood wasn't to last though, with Green co-leader Marama Davidson the other opposition MP to question the minister. After a speech advocating upholding the rules-based order, Davidson asked whether the minister would condemn the Israeli and American strikes on Iran. This question seemed to open the floodgates for a shouting match between the two parties, which perhaps is a lot easier with the new seating configuration in the House (New Zealand First are now close to the Greens, having swapped with ACT to allow the new deputy prime minister to sit next to the prime minister). A Ministerial Statement which began in a relatively statesmanlike fashion then morphed into a political tit-for-tat. "I have to say when it comes to the proxies for Iran that have committed so much terrorism and the loss of thousands of lives, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, with respect to Iran-when it comes to that, the Greens have been not a syllable, not a sound, not a mutter, not a murmur, no condemnation whatsoever," Peters said. "We've condemned all parties, and shouting out like that typically just disposes me to point to that member and say that member's only got one side, and, for the first time ever, she's mentioned Iran's people. Yes, Iran's people have been under 40 years of desperation." After a few minutes of back and forth and argy-bargy, Speaker Gerry Brownlee blew his metaphorical whistle. "Neither party here is displaying the sort of decorum that you'd expect out of Parliament. I refer both sides to Speaker's ruling 150/1, which means that neither side of the House has carte blanche to say whatever they like as a result of a ministerial statement." *RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk.
Scoop
5 hours ago
- Scoop
Upholding Religious Freedom And Respect For All
Wednesday, 25 June 2025, 8:58 pm Press Release: Joint Media Statement Joint Statement from New Zealand Faith Communities 22 June 2025 As leaders and representatives of diverse religious communities across Aotearoa New Zealand, we are united in our concern about the messages promoted during the public protest held on June 21, 2025 by Brian Tamaki and his followers against immigration and the spread of non-Christian religions in New Zealand. The right to protest is a cornerstone of democracy. However, we are saddened to see rhetoric that appeared to diminish the place of some faiths in New Zealand's multicultural society. Our religious traditions may differ, but we all share a common commitment to compassion, dignity, and the peaceful coexistence of communities. New Zealand's strength lies in its diversity, including its religious diversity. The freedom to worship, or not to worship, is a value we all cherish. We believe that no one faith should be positioned as having greater legitimacy than others in the life of our nation. We encourage dialogue rather than division, and understanding rather than suspicion. In times of tension, it is especially important that we come together in the spirit of unity and mutual respect. We remain committed to working together across our faiths to uphold these values and to support the inclusive, respectful society that we all seek to build. Statement supported by the following organizations, spokespeople noted: Ben Kepes, Spokesperson New Zealand Jewish CouncilDaljit Singh, Chair NZ Central Sikh AssociationSecretary, Hindu Foundation New Zealand, IncSomaliland Society in New Zealand Incorporated Wellington Abrahamic Council © Scoop Media
Scoop
9 hours ago
- Scoop
Palestine Israel: Implementing A One-State Solution
It's time that the nations of the world (or at least the influential western nations) accept the reality that all the lands that constituted 1920-1948 Mandatory Palestine should be formally recognised as a single nation-state; ideally called Palestine Israel or Israel-Palestine, but more realistically called Israel. In other words, the never-viable notion of a two-nation-state division of 'Israel' ( should be dropped as a viable solution in favour of the promotion of a liberal bicultural (or multicultural) nation-state. The role model for change could be South Africa. Jewish and Non-Jewish intellectuals (such as Hans Kohn, Shlomo Sand and Yanis Varoufakis) – on the political left – have been arguing for this 'one-state-solution' for over 100 years. It's just that their voices have always been deamplified by those on the political centre and the political right. (On the centre, we think of people like Joe Biden, Keir Starmer, and their predecessors. On the right, we may consider former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, a leader in the 1940s of the openly fascist Lehi, yet a moderate by today's Israeli political standards.) Shlomo Sand outlines the history of the arguments for a single 'binational' state in his 2024 book Israel-Palestine: Federation or Apartheid? His vision, which is not quite what I favour, emphasises binationalism ( and looks towards these successful liberal examples of bi- or multi- nationalism: Canada, Belgium, Switzerland. The better framing of this approach, I believe, is biculturalism; though even that is not problem-free, because it is an exclusive concept. What I think would work best for Palestine Israel is also the same as what would work best for Aotearoa New Zealand: multiculturalism with a bicultural (treaty) emphasis. (Ireland could have become something similar, as in Irish rugby; but it went down a failed two-state path, and experienced two substantial civil wars last century.) The ideal is for Palestine Israel to become a liberal democracy in which all people born within its borders become citizens with equal citizenship rights; a nation state which commits to both the domestic and international norms of liberal democracy. (In a bicultural nation-state, the principal divider is religion; normally people's religious loyalties are discrete, meaning that being, say, a Muslim or Jew or Christian is mutually exclusive. The word 'national' is increasingly used in the 21st century as it was in the 19th century; to refer to a 'people' or a 'race' rather than to relate to a territory defined by its borders and its sovereign institutions. Ethnicity – the better word is 'ancestry – is not a discrete concept such as 'religion'; individual people have multiple ancestries, and should not be required to identify as one over another.) How can this be achieved? First, we should note that the status quo in Eretz Israel is at least as unacceptable as Apartheid South Africa was to our world of mostly 'internationally-civilised' nation-states. (An internationally civilised state is one that accepts agreed norms in the ways that it relates to other nation states, meaning that it does not indulge in offensive hard-power geopolitics – such as 'gunboat diplomacy'; and it practises cultural equality. Terrorism is understood as criminality. Such a state does not have to be a 'democracy' in the Westminster or American sense; but it should meet open liberal standards in the ways it treats its resident denizens – non-citizens – and it should subscribe to international treaties on matters such as climate sustainability and nuclear energy and election authenticity.) Second, this desired outcome will not come about by force. The community of liberal nations should simply recognise Eretz Israel as a nation state, based ideally on the prior borders of Mandatory Palestine. While there should be no demands, such a new nation-state would be risking discriminatory sanctions if it abuses liberal norms; in particular if it implements laws (including civil-marriage laws) that discriminate on the basis of sex, religion, or ancestry. Again, the obvious model is Apartheid South Africa, and the ways that South Africa was excluded from international sport so long as it implemented laws which discriminated on the basis of ethnicity. (Palestinians and many Israelis have Levantine ethnicity. Many Israelis have European, African or Asian co-ethnicity; that non-indigeneity should never be held against them. Nor should the indigeneity of the Palestinians.) In recognising Eretz Israel as Israel-Palestine (or even just under the name 'Israel'), a Levantine nation state, Israel's nuclear status should be addressed and normalised. (Likewise, India and Pakistan should be pressured to join the 'nuclear club'. One of the most problematic regional asymmetries at present is the advanced nuclear-status of Israel versus the embryonic nuclear status of Iran; Israel at present hides behind its non-membership of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons to make it seem that Iran is a bigger nuclear threat to the world than Israel is.) Recognition of Eretz Israel as a sovereign nation state, under any name, should come with overt expectations of democracy, amnesty, truth, reconciliation, and press freedom. There should be no formal or informal mechanism of 'settling scores', no matter how reprehensible anyone's past or present behaviour has been. Truth trumps vengeance cloaked as 'accountability'. Lebanon was an initially successful, but now largely failed, version of a similar attempt at creating a tolerant multicultural nation state in the Levant. Lebanon's main problem was its belligerent southern neighbour. Israel-Palestine would not have Israel as a neighbour. Abandon the naïve two-state solution There is no way a Palestinian nation-state can be viable. At the very best it could become like a mini-Pakistan or mini-Bangladesh; and even that would take decades. (And the last Israeli prime minister to formalise a two-state future – Yitzhak Rabin – was assassinated in 1995, having achieved a Nobel Peace Prize in 1994.) The two-state-solution agenda seems to be more about deescalating sufficiently for the Palestine issue to disappear from its media prominence; and not at all about ending a forever war which began in 1948. The present forever war – now in its hottest phase – followed a brutal war for Israeli-Jewish independence and non-Jewish expulsion waged by fascist and non-fascist 'non-state actors' from 1939 to 1948 against the British 'protectors'. That, in turn, followed a prior Palestinian insurrection against the British and the settlers from 1936-1939 (though overshadowed in the international media by the Spanish Civil War), which in its turn followed the 1929 Palestine riots. That's 96 years of escalating forever violence. In Summary Recognise a new expanded state, with or without a new name, but with certain (unenforceable, but well-publicised) expectations. This expectation should be a multi-cultural Levantine sovereign state, embracing adherents of the three Abrahamic faiths (as well as people of other religions, or no religion, as citizens; people born in Israel or Palestine, and documented immigrants): Levantine Jews, Levantine Muslims, Levantine Christians, plus others. All Israelis. And all Palestinians. Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand. Keith Rankin Political Economist, Scoop Columnist Keith Rankin taught economics at Unitec in Mt Albert since 1999. An economic historian by training, his research has included an analysis of labour supply in the Great Depression of the 1930s, and has included estimates of New Zealand's GNP going back to the 1850s. Keith believes that many of the economic issues that beguile us cannot be understood by relying on the orthodox interpretations of our social science disciplines. Keith favours a critical approach that emphasises new perspectives rather than simply opposing those practices and policies that we don't like. Keith retired in 2020 and lives with his family in Glen Eden, Auckland.
