A Tripartite Solution to the Conflict Afflicting ‘the Levant’

Going back to the Peel Commission report

Stephen Yearwood
3 min readNov 15, 2023
Photo by Simon Hurry on Unsplash

The issues separating the Muslim Palestinians and the Judaic Israelis are both religious (along with other cultural differences) and mundane, i.e., economics, property, political power, etc. If there is one idea whose time seems to have passed, it is the notion of a two-state solution for resolving the ongoing conflict between between those two groups of people.

That proposal has been seen as the only alternative to one side utterly subjugating the other — or worse — since it was suggested in the Peel Commission report in Britain in 1937. In the intervening years developments in the region have led to ever less likelihood of its implementation. This most recent outbreak of escalated violence has surely put the final nail in the coffin of that ill-starred conception.

That report actually called, however, for two states and another entity, in the form of a continuation of the British Mandate. Britain would continue to oversee a part of the region that would include Jerusalem (the part of the region of most religious significance for both Jews and Muslims — as well as Christians, for that matter).

So this proposed solution calls again for three geopolitical entities in the region. Presumably, there would have to be two nation-states, one for Israelis and one for Palestinians. Re. the Peel Commission, there would be a third entity that would include Jerusalem. It could be a nation-state or might perhaps be some other kind of political entity.

There are also divisions within both groups of people. There are some who are incapable of conceiving of coexistence within a geopolitical entity of any kind with people in the other group (as well as others in their own group) and some who are able and willing to live in the presence of people in any other groups in a congenial (enough) geopolitical unit.

So this third entity could be a ‘democracy of the willing’ populated by Jews and Muslims (and whoever else). It could perhaps be called Holy Land (not ‘The Holy Land’ because there are other parts of the planet just as holy in the eyes of other people).

Here’s the kicker. This whole construct could — though it would not have to — rest upon a revolutionary monetary paradigm. It would provide a common currency for all three entities that would not in any way compromise the sovereignty of any of them. It would not even require economic interaction, much less cooperation, among any of them. Yet, it would ensure the absence of unemployment or poverty in all of the entities and provide for the possibility of eliminating taxes and public debt for funding government. Each entity would be free to adopt or reject any of the various options available within the paradigm without affecting the options of any of the other entities within it.

This common currency would bind all three entities together in a way that would be perfectly peaceful and completely noncoercive. Over time, with it in place tensions among the groups would relax.


for the curious: an introduction to the paradigm that puts it in a historical context, with links to more about it: “Neutral Money” (here in Medium but not behind the paywall)



Stephen Yearwood

unaffiliated, non-ideological, unpaid: M.A. in political economy (where philosophy and economics intersect) with a focus in money/distributive justice