The century-long conflict over Israel-Palestine both highlights the trouble caused by the introduction of the nation-state in the Middle East and the reasons it retains some allure, including the promise of security, belonging, and access to the privileges of membership in the community of states. Does ending the conflict require us to reimagine the relationship between nation, state and territory? Confederal proposals such as « A Land for All » and « The Holy Land Confederation » suggest that it does, but their visions differ from each other in important ways. This paper will explore how they reconceptualize the nation-state, tracing the ways their visions differ from each other and from more conventional Zionist and Palestinian nationalist approaches. The paper will then turn to considering two crucial questions raised by these proposals. First, to what extent would each state be ethnicized or « dyed in a nation’s color » (Wimmer, 2002)? Drawing on comparative experience, the paper will consider the appropriate constraints on laws privileging certain ethnic groups in relation to language, immigration and naturalization, access to voting rights, governmental services, benefits, and positions. Second, to what extent would an Israeli-Paelstinian confederation define norms and establish institutions that safeguard the rights of minorities in each member state? Commitments to minority rights – entrenched in constitutional provisions and/or in international commitments – have come to be seen as critical to the stability of new political configurations in divided societies. But their uneven success suggests the need for mechanisms of adjudication and enforcement beyond just a stated commitment – especially in a context where Israeli Jewish settlers make their home in a Palestinian state and Palestinian refugees make theirs in an Israeli state. The potential for discrimination is strong, and giving national judiciaries full responsibility for minority protection could subject courts to political pressures that challenge their legitimacy no matter how they rule. A supranational court could both safeguard minority rights and help to keep the peace. With regard to the design of such an institution, the paper will consider what lessons may be drawn from models such as the European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina.