Stateless Citizenship (2013)

Summary

A study of the Palestinian-Arab citizens of Israel arguing that their exclusion is produced not despite their Israeli citizenship but through it: inclusion in Israel’s racialized Israeli Incorporation Regime is what renders them stateless, a condition Molavi names Stateless Citizenship (Stateless Citizenship (2013), PDF p.26-27, p.41-42).

What the file is

Stateless Citizenship: The Palestinian-Arab Citizens of Israel, by Shourideh Molavi, Brill, Leiden and Boston, 2013, Studies in Critical Social Sciences volume 54. 276 PDF pages, about 113,085 words in the text copy supplied. Access basis given with the source: open-license (CC BY-NC); the book’s own copyright page (PDF p.6) states it is an open access title distributed under the prevailing cc-by-nc License, made freely available with Knowledge Unlatched support, ISBN 978-90-04-25406-0 (hardback) and 978-90-04-25407-7 (e-book). The text copy carries PDF page markers and is clean for prose; Figures 1-3 are images or maps whose captions are legible in the text copy, and Figures 2-3 (PDF p.19-20) and the figures-bearing PDF p.28-29 were checked against the original. Printed page numbers run twenty behind PDF pages in the body (Introduction begins printed p.1 on PDF p.21; Chapter 1 begins printed p.23 on PDF p.43). PDF p.3 and PDF p.8 are blank, PDF p.14 and PDF p.18 are blank section pages, and PDF p.140, PDF p.202 and PDF p.238 are blank chapter-divider pages, as recorded in the reading notes and, for p.202 and p.238, confirmed against the original. The series page (PDF p.2) prints “G. William Domhofff” as printed. PDF p.252, PDF p.266 and PDF p.276 are blank, confirmed against the original, as recorded in the reading notes.

Section by section

Front matter (PDF p.1-10): title and series pages, Figure 1 caption, title page, copyright page, epigraphs from Giorgio Agamben, Means Without End (2000), and Jacques Derrida, “Foreigner Question”, in Of Hospitality (2000), and the contents: Preface ix; Acknowledgments xiii; List of Figures xv; Introduction 1; 1. Liberal Citizenship: Ambiguities and Inconsistencies 23; 2. The Israeli Incorporation Regime 43; 3. Israeli Hostipitality 107; 4. Liberal Pretence of a Jewish State 121; 5. From Citizenship to Stateless Citizenship 147; 6. The Anatomy of Stateless Citizenship 183; Conclusion 213; Appendix I, selections from Adalah’s The Democratic Constitution (20 March 2007) 219; Appendix II, selections from Mada al-Carmel’s The Haifa Declaration (15 May 2007) 227; References 233; Index 247.
Figure 1 (PDF p.4): the cover image, graffiti in the predominantly Arab Haifa district of Wadi Nisnas photographed October 06, 2012, saying “Haifa is the heart of Palestine” in Arabic, and painted over by the next evening; the caption reads the graffiti and its erasure as Arab alienation, marginalization, and control and surveillance of Arab expression in a city praised officially for democracy and coexistence.
Preface (PDF p.11-13 / printed p.ix-xi, signed Haifa – December 2012): the UN General Assembly vote of November 29, 2012, sixty-five years after the Partition Plan, recognising Palestine within the 1967 borders as a non-member observer state, against a record of Israeli wars, blockade of Gaza and daily violations in the West Bank and Jerusalem, with no significant uproar from global actors or Jewish-Israeli society. At each military juncture the loyalty and control of Palestinian citizens inside Israel was debated; their presence within a racialized citizenship regime designed to exclude them points to the unfeasibility of Israel’s exclusively Jewish self-definition. A two-state settlement leaving entrenched Jewish domination over non-Jewish citizens must be rejected; any just resolution must incorporate equality, genuine inclusion, recognition and historical rights for Arabs inside Israel. Noura Erakat is cited (footnote 2) for Israeli control over sixty-two percent of the West Bank, a further thirteen percent confiscated by the wall, six hundred thousand settlers, and a WHO finding that Gaza would be unliveable by 2020.
Acknowledgments (PDF p.15-16 / printed p.xiii-xiv): the book culminates eight years of first-hand research; its analysis was shaped by posts with Haifa-based Mada al-Carmel, Ittijah and Adalah, the longest at Mada al-Carmel, beginning as a four-month internship, with Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian named as friend and mentor. Its method grounds study of the incorporation regime in the standpoint and experiences of the excluded and in research documented by organised segments of the Palestinian community; Hassan Jabareen and Rina Rosenberg of Adalah and Nadim Rouhana of Mada al-Carmel permitted republication of selections from The Democratic Constitution and The Haifa Declaration.
List of Figures and Figures 2-3 (PDF p.17, p.19-20 / printed p.xv-xviii): Figure 2 gives approximate distributions of Jewish and Palestinian populations in Israel-Palestine in 1945 (Village statistics, PLO Research Center; courtesy Ahmad Barclay, 2010); Figure 3 gives the same for 2009 (Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics and Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics estimates, settler distribution from Peace Now; courtesy Ahmad Barclay, 2010).
Introduction (PDF p.21-42 / printed p.1-22): the incorporation regime favours Jews across ‘Israel proper’ and the Occupied Territories, placing Palestinian-Arabs by legal classification and spatial logic — refugees outside denied any share, West Bank and Gaza residents under occupation without formal membership, East Jerusalem residents with mobility without civic membership, and citizens inside ‘Israel proper’ with some entrenched rights but excluded as non-Jews. The book studies the last group: more than 1.6 million people, around 20.5 percent of Israel’s population, mostly Muslim with significant Christian and Druze communities, including around 200,000 Arab Bedouin citizens and around 360,000 internally displaced persons (PDF p.21-22). The Prawer Plan footnote records Adalah’s report that full implementation would forcibly displace up to 70,000 Bedouin citizens and destroy 35 unrecognized villages (PDF p.22). Citizens are denied national membership and state identification and distanced from the rest of the Palestinian population; Israel denies their existence as an indigenous population, national group or national minority; policy since the state’s inception has aimed at control and exclusion through citizenship itself. The literature’s descriptions of Arab citizenship as one-way, hegemonic, illusory, shrinking, ghettoized, hollow or mere are not contested but built on: the provision of citizenship, not its absence, is the medium of marginalization, and Israel inverts the relation of exception in classical liberal citizenship, producing Stateless Citizenship.
Introduction — A New Chapter of Palestinian History (PDF p.27-34 / printed p.7-14): around one million Palestinian-Arabs lived in Mandate Palestine in early December 1947; the 1948 war’s expulsions, which began in December 1947 and accelerated March 10 to May 15, 1948, created around 750,000 refugees, killed around 13,000 Palestinians and destroyed and depopulated around 418 villages, leaving 156,000 Palestinians, of whom about 30 percent (around 46,000) were internally displaced (PDF p.28-29, citing Khalidi 1992); footnote 14 records the disagreement over village counts — 531 destroyed in the estimates of Khalidi, Pappé and Abu Sitta against 369 in Morris’s — beside agreement among the scholars Molavi calls serious and honest that the campaign was organised and systematic ethnic cleansing. A Military Administration on British Emergency Regulations then controlled the remaining population in the Galilee, the Triangle and the Naqab, and land confiscation transferred Palestinian land to newly immigrated Jews into the 1970s and beyond, after military rule officially ended in 1966. On March 30, 1976 the first national general strike since 1948, against a Galilee expropriation plan affecting around 20,000 dunums between Sakhnin and Arrabah, was met with army, police and border guard deployment; six Palestinian citizens were killed, around one hundred injured and many arrested, and March 30 is since commemorated as Land Day (PDF p.30-31). The 1976 Koenig Report footnote gives the report’s recommendations for the Judaization of the Galilee (PDF p.31). Organising followed through the High Follow-Up Committee, formed in the early 1980s, solidarity in the first Intifada, exclusion of Palestinian citizens from the Oslo process — whose negotiators, the January 2011 Palestine Papers revealed, agreed to consider absorbing Arab villages into a future Palestinian state as a concession to Israel — and a turn to civil society, culminating in October 2000, when demonstrations from October 1 to 9 left thirteen Palestinian citizens dead and hundreds injured and the Or Commission was formed on November 8, 2000 (PDF p.32-33).
Introduction — A Word on Zionism (PDF p.34-37 / printed p.14-17): Shabtai Teveth is quoted for Ben-Gurion’s view that the ‘Arab question’ was imprecisely named, being a question of Zionist fulfilment in the light of Arab reality (PDF p.34). ‘Modern Zionism’ in the book means the political project of settlement, colonialism and statehood based on Jewish exclusiveness, not the cultural revival forms associated with Ahad Ha’am, Martin Buber, Ernst Simon and Judah Magnes. Race is treated as inherent to political Zionism: the Jewish National Fund’s land rules — its lands held as the inalienable property of the Jewish people, not leasable to non-Jews and not to be cultivated by non-Jewish labour — are given from the Jewish Agency constitution as cited by Lehn (PDF p.36), and David Theo Goldberg’s Racial Palestinianization is adopted as the book’s premise: Israel as a racial state, and Palestinians treated as a despised and demonic racial group (PDF p.36-37).
Introduction — Organization of the Book (PDF p.38-42 / printed p.18-22): the book’s stated objective is neither historical nor legal study nor a comparison with other settler-colonial societies, but an examination of how the exclusion embedded in the traditional citizenship model is realised and transformed in Israel’s racialized regime. Summaries are given for all six chapters: Chapter 1 on citizenship’s Otherizing, Chapter 2 on multifaceted discrimination, Chapter 3 on Derrida’s hostipitality and the category ‘Israeli-Arab’, Chapter 4 on liberal Zionism in Yakobson and Rubinstein’s Israel and the Family of Nations (2009), Chapter 5 on the impossibility of an Israeli nationality separate from a Jewish nation and the Supreme Court’s repeated rejection of petitions for one, and Chapter 6 on stateless citizenship’s three dynamics — exclusive inclusion, a stable and perpetual state of emergency, and coexistence without existence.
Chapter 1, Liberal Citizenship: Ambiguities and Inconsistencies — Framing Citizenship and Theorizing Citizenship (PDF p.43-47 / printed p.23-27; chapter continues in part 2): citizenship as the intersection of identity and law and the primary organising relation between state and citizens. T. H. Marshall’s civil (eighteenth-century), political (nineteenth-century) and social (twentieth-century) components are set out (Marshall 1950, 10-11), with the classical model’s omissions — ethnicity, culture, gender and sexuality, class and religion — noted. Aristotle’s political animal and the mutual creation of citizen-subject and city-state (McAfee 2000, 3) are given, and citizenship as a site of struggle that delineates hierarchies (Ben-Porat and Turner 2011, 7-9). Liberal citizenship’s features — personhood against non-citizens, passive and active membership, universalistic rights, formal equality, and individualism as freedom from state interference (Schuck 2002, 134) — are set out with the tension collective rights introduce and the impossibility of the liberal state’s claimed neutrality (Schuck 2002, 141).
Chapter 1 — Citizenship beyond the State (PDF p.48-53 / printed p.28-33): Engin F. Isin’s warning that etymological tracing of citizenship to Greek, Roman and medieval cities mobilises an invented occidental tradition superior to an oriental one (Isin 2002, 305); Turner’s Roman account of citizenship’s loosening from the city-state (Turner 1990, 202); Saskia Sassen’s inside-state and outside-state transformations (Sassen 2002, 277-278) and her denationalizing / post-national distinction (Sassen 2002, 286). Yasemin Soysal’s postwar incorporation of even foreign populations under universalistic personhood (Soysal 1994, 31) grounds the concept of an incorporation regime, and Isin’s ‘acts of citizenship’ and new vocabulary (Isin 2009, 368, 371) extend citizenship beyond status and state borders; Margaret Somers’s Arendtian citizenship as the right to have rights requires both de jure and de facto rights (Somers 2008, 5-9).
Chapter 1 — Problematizing Legal Categorizations (PDF p.54-61 / printed p.34-41): the modern citizen as autonomous individual subject (McAfee 2000, 13); social rights as products of conflict, not inevitability; the necessary Otherizing at citizenship’s root and its relation of exception, whose margins hold stateless persons, asylum seekers, refugees, foreigners, temporary workers, guests and aliens. Rancière (spelled Ranciére in the text) is quoted: man and citizen are political subjects, “surplus names”, not definite collectivities (Ranciére 2004, 303). The book’s aim is to examine Otherizing within and through inclusion, not only at the margins. Will Kymlicka’s international-legal distinction — indigenous peoples accorded accommodation, minorities integration (Kymlicka 2008, 3) — and its three presumed differences are set out, with the critique that power and oppression are hardly present in Kymlicka’s account and that his contribution is the liberal mainstreaming of minority rights (Joppke 2002, 247). The continuation (PDF p.59-61) renders the indigenous/national-minorities distinction irrelevant for minority rights — both old minorities hold accommodation rights — and records Kymlicka’s concession that outside the European settler core cases the distinction is problematic, and his reference to Amal Jamal’s argument that Israel is a European settler-colonial state, on which Palestinians would meet the traditional definition of an indigenous people.
Chapter 1 — Racial State, Racialized Citizenship (PDF p.61-62 / printed p.41-42; Chapter 1 ends): Yasemin Soysal’s incorporation regime — “patterns of institutional practices and more or less explicit cultural norms that define the membership of individuals and/or groups in the society and differentially allocate entitlements, obligations and domination” (Soysal 1994, 36) — is adopted as the frame for the Israeli case: Israel’s Jewish and Zionist character shapes the citizenship provided to its Palestinian-Arab community and produces racialized frameworks of exclusion that work in conjunction and cannot be treated in isolation.
Chapter 2, The Israeli Incorporation Regime — Colonizing the Land of Milk and Honey (PDF p.63-69 / printed p.43-49): under a Balfour epigraph (August 11, 1919, on the “700,000 Arabs”), modern political Zionism is presented as a product of a colonial world order, with Maxime Rodinson’s colonial reading quoted in the notes. Herzl’s Altneuland is read in full as a colonial text — its transformed Palestine measured against Europe, its settlers posited as indigenous custodians — and Zionism’s distancing of itself from the colonial milieu is traced through Kimmerling. Gershon Shafir’s framework closes the section: colonization as Zionism’s congenital backbone, the First Aliyah’s ‘ethnic plantation colony’ and the Second Aliyah’s shift from ‘conquest of land’ to ‘conquest of labour’, against the critical Zionist Left’s 1967 watershed that Pappé is quoted describing.
Chapter 2 — A Multifaceted Discrimination: Legislative Level (PDF p.70-78 / printed p.50-58): following As’ad Ghanem’s three levels (declarative, structural, operational), the legislative level is treated first for its function in reproducing the Jewish nation-state. Adalah’s more than thirty discriminatory laws frame the account; seven are examined — the 2009 Israel Lands Administration amendment (800,000 dunums made saleable, the JNF given decisive authority in the new Land Authority Council over the ILA’s 93 percent of the land), the 2010 amendment to the 1943 Land (Acquisition for Public Purposes) Ordinance, the Admissions Committees Law of March 24, 2011 (almost 700 townships, 68.5 percent of all towns), the ‘Nakba Law’ of March 22, 2011, the NGO Foreign Government Funding Law of February 2011 (the World Zionist Organization, Jewish Agency, United Israel Appeal and JNF exempted), the Ban on Boycotts Law of July 11, 2011 (damages up to 30,000 NIS, settlement-product boycotts criminalized), and the proposed loyalty-oath amendment to the Citizenship Law (1952). Three observations close the section: the laws are pervasive; many amend the state’s oldest laws, showing a regime that must constantly recreate itself against its Palestinian-Arab citizenry; and strengthening the Jewish character generates a feeble democratic character.
Chapter 2 — Formal and Declarative Levels (PDF p.78-83 / printed p.58-63): Jewish dominance in the state’s symbols (Ghanem 1998, 432); the inferior status of Arabic — the 2009 Hebraization of road signs, ministries refusing Arabic documents, Adalah’s finding that more than 200 Supreme Court principle decisions were translated into English and none into Arabic; and the absence of constitutional equality — equality promised in the Declaration of Independence but absent from the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom, protected by judicial interpretation alone (Adalah), with the UN Human Rights Committee’s July 2010 observations to the same effect. The Law of Return (1950) and the Citizenship Law (1952) are given as the substructure of the whole arrangement, contradicting the Palestinian right of return affirmed in UN Resolution 194; the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law (2003) is recorded in a note.
Chapter 2 — Structural and Institutional Levels (PDF p.83-88 / printed p.63-68): exclusion from decision-making — no Arab party in a ruling coalition, exclusion from the Finance, Foreign Affairs and Defence committees, three Arab ministerial appointments (Massalha 1999, Tarif 2001, Majadele 2007), 11 of 120 Knesset seats after the 2013 elections; the Supreme Court as having assumed the state’s official position, with two Arab justices in its history (Zoabi 1999, Joubran from 2003); security-lens institutions including the GSS Arab Affairs Department; and the criminalization strategy of relocating Arab political initiatives to the realm of prohibited action. Two case narratives follow: the October 2000 protests (thirteen citizens killed, more than one thousand arrested, no indictments by January 2008) and the Acre riots of October 2008 (fifty-four arrested, the mistaravim secret unit created in October 2009).
Chapter 2 — The 2008-2009 War on Gaza and Criminalizing Arab Political Participation (PDF p.89-95 / printed p.69-75): the suppression of Gaza-war protest inside Israel (over 830 arrested, 34 percent minors; Adalah’s district-by-district detention contrast), then the three measures against Arab political leadership — Amendment No. 35 (2002) and the Ben-Shalom three elements, Amendment No. 39 (2008) on ‘enemy state’ visits, and the proposed 2009 ministerial loyalty oath — against the 1985 Section 7(A), Tawfik Toubi’s Knesset statement that it tells 16% of citizens “they have no state and they are stateless”, and the Ben-Shalom case itself (PLP allowed by 3-2, Kretzmer’s “Israel is not their state”), from which the chapter draws its circularity conclusion: access to the political sphere to challenge the Jewish-state definition rests on its prior acceptance.
Chapter 2 — Targeting Arab MKs: From Bishara to Zoabi (PDF p.95-98 / printed p.75-78): Azmi Bishara’s immunity revocation initiatives (November 2001), the 2003 indictments — the first prosecution of an MK for political expression — his April 2007 resignation from Cairo, the ‘Bishara bill’ of February 2011, and the March 2011 Knesset plenum vote to formally revoke the parliamentary pension received by a former Knesset member, whom the text does not name (the passage sits within the Bishara discussion); then Haneen Zoabi, stripped of privileges on July 13, 2010 for sailing on the Mavi Marmara (nine activists dead in the UN Human Rights Council’s account), banned from Haifa University’s campus in May 2011 (footnote 63; on the date conflict in that footnote, see Open questions), and barred by the Central Elections Committee on December 19, 2012 by 19-9, the bar unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court by December 30.
Chapter 2 — Arab Civil Society: A Non-State Alternative and the vision documents (PDF p.98-102 / printed p.78-82): excluded by both Israel and the PLO after Oslo, Palestinian-Arabs built a national democratic movement through civil society (Payes 2003), culminating in the three 2006-2007 vision documents — the Future Vision (High Follow-Up Committee), Adalah’s Democratic Constitution and Mada al-Carmel’s Haifa Declaration — the first formal collective statements of the community’s placement, agreeing on Israeli responsibility, recognition of the Nakba, the right of return under UN Resolution 194 and Palestinian self-determination within the pre-1967 borders. The Democratic Constitution’s first clause (“[t]he borders of the State of Israel are the borders of the territory which was subject to the Israeli law until 5 June 1967”) and its “Empires have frontiers, but democracies have borders” are quoted, as is the Haifa Declaration’s Holocaust passage, the only vision-document acknowledgment of the Jewish narrative.
Chapter 2 — Response to the Rise of Arab Civil Society: The Case of Ameer Makhoul (PDF p.102-103 / printed p.82-83; case continues in the next entry): the former Ittijah director’s April 21, 2010 travel ban under Regulation 6 of the Emergency Regulations – Foreign Travel Law (1948), issued without a hearing, and his 3:10 am arrest on May 6 by some sixteen GSS and police officers, with the Ittijah office in Haifa raided the same night; the narrative breaks off mid-sentence at PDF p.103.
Chapter 2 — The Case of Ameer Makhoul, concluded (PDF p.104-107 / printed p.84-87): a gag order barred media coverage; for twelve days Makhoul was held in incommunicado detention as a “security detainee”, his hearings held in his absence with “secret information” traded between court and GSS and all information on the investigation and his medical condition classified. The ‘security prisoner’ classification (Baker) determines a prisoner’s prison, wing, leave, home visits and telephone access, and in practice falls only on Palestinians; Palestinian citizen prisoners are on a double periphery, harsher-treated than Jewish prisoners and excluded from Israeli-Palestinian prisoner-release agreements as an internal Israeli issue. His defence team’s May 16 announcement that they would not participate in the hearing without access to him — “the legal system is simply a rubber stamp for the Shabak” — was the first such boycott threat in Israel’s history; the ban was lifted May 18, revealing interrogation methods the defence called prohibited torture, and on May 27 he was charged with assistance to the enemy in wartime, conspiracy to assist Hezbollah, aggravated espionage and contact with a foreign agent, denied all charges, faced ‘secret evidence’ and a videotaped admission said to be made under duress, and on January 30, 2011 was sentenced to nine years, one suspended.
Chapter 2 — Operative and Budgetary Level (PDF p.107-113 / printed p.87-93): Palestinian citizens are denied proportional representation and access in budgets, resources and land; the World Zionist Organization – Jewish Agency in Israel (Status) Law (1952) makes the WZO and Jewish Agency quasi-governmental bodies whose regulations benefit Jews only, and Lustick’s post-1948 ‘division of labour’ assigns immigration to the Agency, land to the JNF with the ILA and the Ministry of Agriculture, the Jewish working class to the Histadrut, and the Haganah as the IDF’s foundation. Budgetary discrimination is documented in education (Arabs 6.2 percent of Education Ministry employees; 2008 illiteracy 13.4 percent of Arab women against 3.4 percent of Jewish women; a State Education Law (1953) curriculum centred on Jewish history and Zionist ideology, 2009 ‘national anthem kits’ and a ban on teaching the Nakba), in religious affairs (the Protection of Holy Sites Law (1967) implemented only for Jewish sites; 135 officially recognized holy sites in early 2007, all Jewish; Be’er Sheva’s 5,000 Muslims without a functioning mosque), in health (Arab women worst on life expectancy, chronic illness, obesity and breast cancer, Khatib 2012; no major public hospitals in the Arab sector) and in employment (2008: 22 percent of Arab women employed against 66.6 percent of Jewish women; average gross household salary 8,818 NIS Arab against 14,242 NIS Jewish, the gap widening with education).
Chapter 2 — Land: Emergency Regulations, Absentee Property, the ILA and the Unrecognized Villages (PDF p.113-118 / printed p.93-98): the Land Ordinance Law (1943) and the British Emergency Regulations — introduced in 1936 against the Arab Revolt, recast in 1945 against Lehi and Irgun over the recorded objections of Dunkelblum, Joseph and Shapira, and retained wholesale at independence (Jiryis 1976) — let commanders declare areas “closed”. The Absentee Property Law (1950) confiscated refugee and IDP property to a Custodian, created the Present Absentees (an estimated 40,000 to 75,000 citizens), and covered ‘abandoned’ land assessed at 4.2 to 5.8 million dunums, with 350 of the 370 new Jewish-only settlements of 1948-1952 built on it. The 1960-1961 Basic Law: Israel Lands, Israel Lands Law and Israel Lands Administration Law placed JNF-controlled land under the ILA, administered on JNF principles and not saleable or leasable to non-Jews: 93 percent of Israel’s territory is now under direct state control, against Palestinian-Arab ownership and/or cultivation of some 93-94 percent of geographical Palestine before 1948. The effects are most acute in the unrecognized villages: approximately 75,000 to 90,000 Naqab Bedouin citizens with no council, no government services and a prohibition on permanent development, under forced evictions and repeated home demolitions.
Chapter 2 — Israeli Apartheid: Beyond South Africa (PDF p.118-126 / printed p.98-106; Chapter 2 ends): Jewish identity is automatically merged with Israeli citizenship and provides an assemblage of rights irrespective of formal citizenship; within Shafir and Peled’s “concentric circles” the Palestinian community sits in a rigid periphery, and the regime is structured as an apartheid state system. Uri Davis’s distinction — apartheid as racism regulated in law through acts of parliament, against racism in liberal democracies where legal recourse exists — is adopted; apartheid is a crime any state can commit, so ‘apartheid-like’ and ‘apartheid analogy’ are rejected (Jamjoum), and Mac Allister’s legal framework and Dugard’s 2007 report treat the regime as geographically continuous across ‘Israel proper’, Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza and the refugee camps, its measures endemic to the settler-colonial enterprise and amplified by occupation, with Yiftachel’s “creeping apartheid” quoted in support. The coming chapters will treat the regime’s mechanisms as existing over a single political-geographic unit, Mandate Palestine.
Chapter 3, Israeli Hostipitality — opening and From Hospitality to Derridean ‘Hostipitality’ (PDF p.127-133 / printed p.107-113): under a Darwish Identity Card (1964) epigraph, Derrida’s account is set out from Kant’s Toward a Perpetual Peace: hospitality as a stranger’s right not to be treated with hostility, limited to a right of resort conditional on acceptance of the host’s code, so that the host’s greeting folds the foreign Other into the internal law of the host and the host “remains the patron, the master of the household”; hence Hostipitality, hospitality parasitized by hostility, a self-contradictory concept that can only be possible on the condition of its impossibility, against a genuine, unconditional hospitality — “a law without law” — in which the guest would become the host’s host.
Chapter 3 — Oscillating between Host and Guest (PDF p.133-135 / printed p.113-115): Palestinians and Jewish-Israelis both claim indigeneity, or host-status — Palestinians on centuries-long majority presence, Jewish-Israelis on an “eternal, historic right to the Land of Israel” (Lustick 1980, 92) or on presence extending to Biblical times — so “Palestinian-Arabs and what could be called ‘Palestinian-Jews’ are both indigenous to the land”, but with Israel’s creation the Jewish population’s indigeneity was inherited by the Zionist movement on the basis of rejecting the Palestinian-Arab population’s. Engaging with the other collective’s hospitality is therefore an existential renunciation of one’s own host status, and the host remains host only so long as the guest recognizes her/him as such.
Chapter 3 — Israeli ‘Hostipitality’ (PDF p.135-139 / printed p.115-119; Chapter 3 ends): the liberal-Zionist Jewish state as a welcoming home is an exercise of hostipitality — Palestinian-Arabs welcomed only as an inferior, legally unrecognized collective — and where the ‘Palestinian guest’ withholds reassurance of the host’s sovereignty it is extracted through legally enforced obligations and limitations. Its instrument is the Israeli-Arab identity: a de-Palestinianized Arab, named ‘Arab’ so as not to be Palestinian and prevented from becoming a full Israeli, whose adoption would entrench Jewish host status while locking Palestinian-Arabs into guest status; with Mohanty, the periphery determines the centre. Israeli hostipitality therefore needs perpetual classification (Jewish and non-Jewish) and hierarchy, doubly marginalizing the Arab citizenry from both Israeli and Palestinian national projects: “they become stateless-citizens”.
PDF p.140: blank chapter-divider page.
Chapter 4, Liberal Pretence of a Jewish State — opening (PDF p.141-142 / printed p.121-122): under an Ahmad (2006) epigraph on a colonialism “racist and extremist by nature” yet “often liberal in ideology and humane in rhetoric”, liberal-Zionism is presented as the most inclusive-seeming of the three conceptions of citizenship (liberal, republican, ethno-nationalist), yet incapable of implementing even liberalism’s basic principles because even its most liberal adherents hold exclusive Jewish demographic domination and territorial control vital regardless of cost. Yakobson and Rubinstein’s *Israel and the Family of Nations* (2009) is introduced as one of the most robust liberal-Zionist readings, a liberal account designed to render the Zionist project immune from critique, heavily lacking any analysis of power and sustained only by selective readings.
Chapter 4 — The UN Partition Plan of 1947 (PDF p.142-146 / printed p.122-126): against Yakobson and Rubinstein’s main argument — that denying the Jewish state’s legitimacy denies the Jewish people’s self-determination, and that democratic shortcomings do not follow from the Jewish-state definition — Molavi sets UNSCOP’s own caveats of full minority protection and “full equality for all citizens with regard to political, civil and religious matters”, and the Knesset’s own record of tension between the state’s two identities, including the August 2011 proposed Basic Law making democratic rule inferior to the “national home for the Jewish people”. The Plan’s parameters doomed it: Jews at around one-third of the inhabitants and legally owning 6-7 percent of the land received 57 percent of some of the most fertile land, containing about 45 percent of the Palestinian population, against 43 percent for the Arab state; Flapan’s “tactical acceptance” is quoted, and the April 1948 offensive and the Dir Yassin massacre frame the exodus of around 750,000.
Chapter 4 — The Principle of ‘Two States for Two Peoples’ (PDF p.147-149 / printed p.127-129): Yakobson and Rubinstein’s argument that disparaging the Jewish state denies two states for two peoples, and that a bi-national state would inevitably be an Arab-Muslim state, is answered on two points: the Jewish state is credited with a non-discriminatory potential the historical record contradicts, while similar arrangements in a bi-national framework are refused any value; and the authors employ the same regional-demographic rationalization they deride in the 1947 Arab leadership. Their framework gives Jewish-Israelis the privileges of both a minority (in the region, owed sympathy for entrenching measures) and a majority (at home, whose democratically expressed will criticism would reject), depriving Arab citizens and non-citizens of any means of challenge.
Chapter 4 — Israel as a ‘State for all of its Citizens’, opening (PDF p.149 / printed p.129; continues in part 4): Yakobson and Rubinstein’s claim that an Arab citizen can call herself ‘Israeli’ without giving up her national identity, beside their concession that the name Israel is “anything but neutral”; the ‘Israel-Arab’ identity is meant to solve the paradox, with Herzl’s Altneuland invoked for a future Jewish state not without Arabs, and Terry (1976) on the first generation of Israeli leaders maintaining that the Palestinians did not exist; the text breaks off mid-sentence at PDF p.149, in the Terry (1976) quotation concluded in the next entry.
Chapter 4 — Israel as a ‘State for all of its Citizens’, concluded (PDF p.150-155 / printed p.130-135): Terry (1976, 71-73) is quoted for the denial of Palestinian existence — Golda Meir in 1969, “There was no such thing as Palestinians” — and for the post-1967 shift to avoiding the word ‘Palestinians’ for ‘the refugees’. Altneuland is then read against Yakobson and Rubinstein: Arab presence in vague, passing indicators in a commonwealth explicitly a “Jewish society” fostering “Jewish mass migration” (Herzl 1987, 46, 85, 176, 177), in which Arabs are invited to coexist as ‘non-Jews’ without existing as Palestinian-Arabs. Rashid Bey, the novel’s only central Arab character, recounts colonization as a “great blessing” — “The Jews have enriched us. Why should we be angry with them” (Herzl 1987, 124) — and is read as the de-Palestinianized Arab, the liberal-Zionist ideal citizen, named ‘Israeli-Arab’ so as not to be Palestinian yet unable to be a full Israeli.
Chapter 4 — Zionist Democracy in a Comparative Context (PDF p.155-158 / printed p.135-138): Yakobson and Rubinstein’s definition of Palestinian-Arabs as a “national minority” (2009, 6, 8, 118) is answered as lacking historicity and power analysis — a non-immigrant collective in its homeland demoted without asking how it became a minority — and their European comparisons (2009, 114, 198) are held to fail because preservation of the Jewish state is contingent on denial of Arab indigenous status, through population control, displacement, land confiscation, ethnic cleansing and transfer that do not operate in the European cases against an indigenous non-migrant population.
Chapter 4 — Israeli Demographobia (PDF p.158-164 / printed p.138-144): Demographobia as a cornerstone of the Zionist project — Ben-Gurion’s ‘demographic duty’, the post-1967 Center for Demography, the December 2000 Herzliya report’s “adaptation or containment”, and the 2010 Jerusalem master-plan report’s 70/30 projection adjusted to 60/40 by 2020 with “land registration arrangements in eastern Jerusalem” as the mechanism for further control. Yakobson and Rubinstein’s defence of the Law of Return — the problem is only that Palestinians have no state of their own (2009, 133) — is answered through Livni’s February 2009 “Your national aspirations lie elsewhere”, the Ensuring Rejection of the Right of Return Law (2001) and Katz’s statement of a “Zionist consensus” against return; their majority argument is shown as circular: a Jewish majority is needed for a Jewish state, and a Jewish state is needed because the Jewish majority wants it (2009, 25).
Chapter 4 — Liberal Rubber Stamp for Israeli Crimes (PDF p.164-166 / printed p.144-146; Chapter 4 ends): word choice dilutes the record — the Military Administration was “felt necessary”, land confiscation was “inevitable” given Jewish immigration, discrimination is “not necessarily the result of deliberate decisions” but “consequence of neglect, a lack of sensitivity to the minority’s specific needs” (2009, 106, 107, 113) — cloaking the incorporation regime in liberal terms of tolerance, representation and self-defence, without an analysis of power and control.
Chapter 5, From Citizenship to Stateless Citizenship — opening and ‘Israeli’ and ‘Palestinian’ as Incomplete Identities (PDF p.167-173 / printed p.147-153): under a Ben-Gurion epigraph (1947, in Lustick 1980, 88), the 1985 Shammas-Yehoshua debate (Kimmerling 2002b, 181-183) frames the chapter: Yehoshua tells Shammas to move “one hundred yards eastward” to a Palestinian state; Shammas seeks a territorial ‘Israeli’ identity including him and “the de-Judaization and de-Zionization of Israel”. No Israeli nationality exists: Kimmerling’s ID reads “nationality (leom): Jewish” (2002b, 187-188), Shammas’s reads ‘Arab’ (2002b, 193), and Kothari’s 2002 report holds that the Citizenship Law “establishes a civil status distinct from ‘Jewish nationality’”. Rouhana (1997) — identity “doubly incomplete”, neither fully Israeli nor fully Palestinian — and Ghanem (2001) — “distressed development”, four streams, Arabs only “partial Israelis” behind an “iron wall” — are the two publications singled out, both positing a bi-national alternative.
Chapter 5 — Defining the ‘Israeli’ Nation (PDF p.173-178 / printed p.153-158): the Tamarin v. State of Israel line — District Judge Shilo and, on appeal, Supreme Court President Agranat ruling “there is no Israeli nation separate from the Jewish nation” — the December 2003 petition of thirty-eight signatories (Avishai 2008, 54), and the 2008 Ornan petition rejected by Judge Sohlberg as “not justiciable” precisely because its applicants included Jews, Arabs and Druze together; Barak’s May 2006 ruling as read by Avishai (2008, 56-57), the August 2011 proposed Basic Law subordinating the democratic character to “the national home for the Jewish people”, and the international refocus in 2011 (Obama in May, US pressure in July) making recognition of Israel as a Jewish state a final-status demand first introduced at Annapolis in 2007.
Chapter 5 — Research on Palestinians in Israel: An Overview, and Formulating Palestinian Citizenship (PDF p.178-195 / printed p.158-175; survey continues in part 5): the literature largely agrees Arabs hold “mere citizenship status, or citizenship in the law”. Jiryis (1976, 235) — the Arab as a “‘different’ citizen, ‘non-Jewish’, belonging to the goyim”; Zureik (1979) — Internal Colonialism, a third cycle of colonialism, against multicultural pluralism; Lustick (1980) — a control system of segmentation, dependence and co-optation aimed “to control the Arab community in Israel rather than to eliminate, integrate, absorb, or develop it” (1980, 63-64); Pappé (2011) and the research-centre generation; Bishara — incidental against substantive citizenship, the Arab-Israeli having “to be part of his rejection”; Zreik (2008, 140) — state borders “almost meaningless” for membership; Yiftachel (2002, 2011) — “shrinking” and ghettoized citizenship; Jamal (2007) — Hollow Citizenship in a nationalizing state; and Peled (1992) and Shafir and Peled (2002) — Ethnic Democracy and ethnorepublicanism, a “residual, truncated status” behind a “protective wall” — with Molavi’s criticism, at the range’s end, that Shafir and Peled neglect the exclusions embedded in even the liberal-Zionist framework.
Chapter 5 — Shafir and Peled concluded, and the Citizens Without Citizenship Paradigm (PDF p.196-199 / printed p.176-179): Shafir and Peled’s proposed “non-hegemonic citizenship discourse” of “democratic multiculturalism” as “the most worthy incorporation regime achievable under present conditions” (2002, 343) is rejected: the Judaization project at Zionism’s root is by definition exclusion and cannot coexist with equality, representation, inclusion and multiculturalism, so under present conditions the promise must remain unfulfilled. The survey’s formulations all point to an irreconcilable de jure / de facto disconnect and to citizens without citizenship — a one-way citizenship whose common good is achieved at Arab citizens’ expense. Rouhana and Sultany’s paradigm is then set out at length: a ‘new Zionist hegemony’ — intensified Jewish foundations, rejection of any Jewish/democratic contradiction, intensified security discourse — that reduces Arab status to “something less than citizenship” (2003, 19-20) and makes citizenship a conditional privilege conferred by the state (Rouhana and Sultany 2003, 14; the phrase as printed spans the PDF p.197-198 page break). Nahla Abdo’s Women in Israel (2011) applies the paradigm in feminist, gendered and critical-race terms: Palestinian women accorded “partial and inferior citizenship status” while removed from the nation-state (Abdo 2011, 39), within a hierarchical citizenship that allocates power and epistemological production to Ashkenazim (2011, 8-9).
Chapter 5 — Stateless Citizenship (PDF p.199-201 / printed p.179-181; Chapter 5 ends): the literature answered what Arab citizenship is by pointing to absence — one-way, hegemonic, illusory, shrinking, ghettoized, hollow, mere citizenship — and how it evolved through disciplinary lenses, always as something missing. The book does not contest those conclusions but supplies the omitted element: the medium through which marginalized Palestinian existence is maintained is citizenship itself. Arabs hold citizen status with rights, however limited; calling it “without citizenship” blurs that the lack of genuine interaction is brought about precisely via the bestowal of citizenship, and formal inclusion in the civic body is where the paradigm applies: “it is through the granting of Israeli citizenship that Arabs are deemed stateless; it is through inclusion within the Israeli citizenship regime that they are excluded” (PDF p.201).
PDF p.202: blank chapter-divider page (confirmed against the original).
Chapter 6, The Anatomy of Stateless Citizenship — opening (PDF p.203-206 / printed p.183-186): the chapter analyses the how — citizenship’s conceptual and political dynamics — starting from Arabs with citizenship, and distinguishes citizen statelessness from the statelessness of West Bank, Gaza, refugee-camp and diaspora Palestinians: citizen-Palestinians hold a particular legal/political relationship (mobility, voting) and no longer live under military administration, yet hold formal membership in a state that, by self-definition, is not theirs. The Acre 2008 case — Ramallah border guards dispatched, official discourse still of coexistence — marks the difference. Abdo is quoted for the two simultaneous processes of exclusion/racial separation and racialized (and ethnicized) inclusion (2011, 39-40). Three paradoxes structure the chapter: exclusive inclusion, a stable and perpetual state of emergency, and coexistence without existence.
Chapter 6 — Knowing the Terrain: From the Exception to the Example (PDF p.207-214 / printed p.187-194): Arendt’s account of the rights of man collapsing for those who had “lost all other qualities and specific relationships – except that they were still human” (Arendt 1973, 299) grounds the claim that membership is the precondition of the ‘right to have rights’. Agamben’s Homo Sacer (1998) is then expounded at length: homo sacer and the sovereign ban, zoē/bios, bare life’s inclusive exclusion as the founding relation of Western politics, the camp as “absolute biopolitical space” where the exception is “realized normally” (1998, 171, 175), and the exception’s structure — “The rule applies to the exception in no longer applying, in withdrawing from it” (1998, 17-18). Against the exception Agamben sets the example: “while the exception is, as we saw, an inclusive exclusion (which thus serves to include what is excluded), the example instead functions as an exclusive inclusion [which serves to exclude what is included]” (Agamben 1998, 21).
Chapter 6 — An Exclusive Inclusion (PDF p.214-216 / printed p.194-196): the example’s mechanism underpins Arab citizens’ relation to Israel — their statelessness lies not in the absence but in the presence of citizenship status. Palestinian-Arabs are not denationalized, stripped of citizenship or placed outside the law; as recognized citizens with (limited) institutional access their relation is the reverse of the camp’s: excluded exactly insofar as they are included. Short of deconstructing itself, stateless citizenship is the only relationship the Zionist juridico-political order can coherently have with its non-Jewish constituents.
Chapter 6 — Bodies as Borders (PDF p.216-222 / printed p.196-202): Salter’s ‘neurotic citizen at a border examination’ (Salter 2008, 365, 374-377) — border examination as a “confessionary machine” institutionalizing “a continual state of exception at the frontier” (2008, 365) — fits exclusive inclusion better than the camp: Arab citizens’ bodies become the state’s borders, performing its sovereignty and their own indefinite peripheral placement. Israel is presented as the only internationally recognized state without final borders, its borders in continuous flux (footnotes 10-11 give the Resolution 181/242 tension and the apartheid wall — around 709 kilometres, concrete parts 8 metres high — with construction slowed since September 2007 and Harel quoted that it “is not done and never will be”). The state serves the Zionist project, not vice versa: Zreik on the state’s mandate to represent Jews worldwide, and Ben-Gurion in 1951 — “the state is just a tool, and at this point in time the state has absorbed only a small part of the nation” (Zreik 2008, 139-140) — with the Law of Return (1950) read as a legal precursor constituting the state rather than a law of it.
Chapter 6 — A Perpetual State of Emergency (PDF p.223-227 / printed p.203-207): fuelling exclusive inclusion is a perpetual emergency with no genuine existential threat, operated through security discourse that amalgamates Arab presence with threat. The Yishuv institutions (Jewish Agency, JNF, Histadrut, Haganah, Basic Fund) formed a proto-state and continued as quasi-state organizations after 1948 (Lustick 1980, 89), their leadership wanting among other things “to prevent the Arab minority from serving as a fifth column” and “to acquire from Israeli Arabs a large percentage of their land-holdings” (Lustick 1980, 63). The emergency declared immediately after the state’s establishment made the British Emergency Regulations the framework of Arab citizenship: at the very moment of being declared citizens, Palestinians were, as ‘non-Jews’, subjected to regulations excluding them from wide spheres, and the emergency officially remains in force. Yakobson and Rubinstein’s own characterization — the emergency as a “‘chronic disease’ which is an integral part of the state’s existence” (2009, 105-106) — is taken as candid confirmation; stateless citizenship is “a paradoxical status which is both a condition of and conditional to Israel’s very existence” (PDF p.227).
Chapter 6 — Coexistence without Existence (PDF p.227-232 / printed p.207-212; Chapter 6 ends): through Agamben’s Means without End account of ‘people’ as a polar concept split between naked life (people) and political existence (People) (2000, 28-31), Israel’s fracture is specified: its citizens do not constitute its people, ‘Israeli people’ being merged with the Jewish people en genera [as printed], so genuine citizenship becomes Jewish citizenship. Arab rights are defined only at the personal level, Jewish privileges at personal and collective levels (Kimmerling 2001, 230), and Arab existence as a nation is actively denied — Jiryis’s ILA exchange, in which the official tells the peasant the land “has always been ours” and his payment is “watchman’s wages” (Jiryis 1976, 74). The regime’s categories are Jewish and non-Jewish: Arabs are invited to coexist as ‘non-Jews’, not as Palestinians — coexistence without existence. Ben-Gurion’s 1946 Anglo-American Committee testimony — Arabs to be treated “on the basis of absolute equality as if they were Jews” (Lustick 1980, 37) — shows equal treatment premised on conceptualizing Arabs as if Jews, against Levinas’s face-to-face encounter with the absolutely Other. All three dynamics are necessary to the Jewish state’s reproduction, and opposition requires deconstructing the incorporation regime.
Conclusion (PDF p.233-237 / printed p.213-217): the argument is restated — the medium of exclusion is citizenship itself; Shafir is quoted for “a multiplicity of hierarchically stacked citizenships” whose full rights are “only available to those who were part of the colonization of Palestinian land” (Shafir 2005, 55). Three forward considerations: (1) citizenship is itself a relation of exclusion, and the book examined Otherizing within and through inclusion — future studies should ask whether citizenship can be genuinely inclusive even of its own subjects; (2) Zionism’s exclusions are an enhanced, accentuated version of liberal citizenship’s own relations of exclusion, exaggerated in Israel’s racialist configuration; (3) under globalization and migration, Israel’s half-century on the periphery may be a window on what is developing in the core — Western drives to national/cultural homogeneity — for which stateless citizenship may serve as an analytical lens.
PDF p.238: blank appendix-divider page (confirmed against the original).
Appendix I, selections from Adalah’s The Democratic Constitution (20 March 2007) — Introduction and Foundations of the Regime, opening (PDF p.239-243 / printed p.219-223; appendix continues in part 6): the Introduction (paras 1-9, approved by Adalah’s General Assembly on 15 July 2006) grounds the proposal in the UDHR and covenants, post-war decolonization and South African reconciliation, and requires, as para 4, that Israel recognize responsibility for the Nakba and the Occupation, the right of return under UN Resolution 194, Palestinian self-determination, and withdrawal from the territories occupied in 1967; para 6 sets the legal starting point — “The Arab citizens in the State of Israel are a homeland minority” — and para 7 catalogues injustices since 1948 from military rule until 1966 and the Kufr Qassem massacre of 1956 [as spelled in the appendix] to October 2000, grounding rights to land return on restorative justice, participation, cultural autonomy and official status for Arabic. Chapter Two’s clauses 1-15 follow: the borders clause (“The borders of the State of Israel are the borders of the territory which was subject to the Israeli law until 5 June 1967”), a democratic state on dignity, liberty and equality, constitutional supremacy, the 120-member Knesset, government and judicial authority (including annulment of unconstitutional laws), and the opening of the Citizenship clause — anti-discrimination-based grants, beginning with birth in the territory to a parent also born there and birth to a citizen parent — which continues beyond PDF p.243. The borders explanatory note (note 2) argues that Israel’s undefined borders made ethnic affiliation the essence of citizenship and closes: “Empires have frontiers, but democracies have borders.”
Appendix I — Citizenship clause concluded, A multicultural state, and Chapter Three: Rights and Freedoms, section II (PDF p.244-246 / printed p.224-226; Appendix I ends): the Citizenship clause (clause 15) concludes with grants to the spouse of a citizen and to those who arrive or remain due to humanitarian reasons, including those persecuted on the basis of political background, and clause 16 provides that “The citizenship of an Israeli citizen cannot be revoked” (PDF p.244). Clause 18, under the heading “A multicultural state”, gives each national minority educational and cultural institutions and each religious minority religious institutions, operated through a representative body chosen by the group’s members and funded by the state at a level equal to the majority’s institutions, with preservation of all groups’ historical, cultural and holy sites, maintenance of identity and culture in public life, relations with members of one’s people or nation including free border crossing, and appropriate representation in all governmental authorities (PDF p.244); explanatory note 4 grounds these rights in article 27 of the ICCPR and the 1992 UN Minorities Declaration, and explanatory note 5 grounds the restitution articles in South African, Canadian, United States and Australian practice and in ILO Convention No. 169, the UN Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the London Declaration on Internally Displaced Persons (PDF p.244-245). Chapter Three’s section II, Distributive and Restorative Justice (clauses 37-44), prohibits discrimination in land transactions (clause 37), entitles groups that suffered injustice and historical discrimination in land allocation to affirmative action in land and water allocation and in planning (clause 38), entitles persons whose land was expropriated or whose property right was violated arbitrarily or because of Arab nationality under the 1943 Land Ordinance, the 1953 Land Acquisition Law, the Absentee Property Law of 1950, article 22 of the 1958 Statute of Limitations or Regulation 125 of the 1945 Emergency (Defence) Regulations to restoration and compensation (clause 39), entitles internally displaced Arab citizens uprooted during and after 1948 to return to their villages and places of residence with compensation and building assistance (clause 40), entitles Muslim Arab citizens to reinstatement of all Muslim Waqf assets transferred as absentee property to the Custodian (clause 41), entitles Arab Bedouin citizens to recognition of traditional title to land possessed on their traditional patterns of ownership, with no transfer except with full and conscious consent (clause 42), provides alternative fair solutions, by consent or by a special authority, where restitution faces an objective and genuine obstacle (clause 43), and entitles residents of “unrecognized villages” to recognition of their existing villages without delay through adequate planning procedures with their full participation (clause 44) (PDF p.245-246). The selections are marked throughout with ellipses; clause 17 and clauses 19-36 are not reproduced, and clause 43 refers to an article 20 that is not reproduced.
Appendix II, selections from Mada al-Carmel’s The Haifa Declaration (15 May 2007) (PDF p.247-251 / printed p.227-231; book’s appendices end): the signatories — “sons and daughters of the Palestinian Arab people who remained in our homeland despite the Nakba, who were forcibly made a minority in the State of Israel after its establishment in 1948 on the greater part of the Palestinian homeland” — ground their national identity in Arabic language and culture and in collective memory, against attempts to splinter them into sectarian groups and “to truncate our identity into a misshapen “Israeli Arab” one” (PDF p.247-248). The Declaration turns inward as well: social, family, sectarian and local structures curtailing individual freedoms are named as the signatories’ own responsibility, Israeli “divide and rule” — including compulsory military service imposed on Druze youth — is held to have exploited those divisions, and the marginalization of women, including violence reaching murder in the name of “family honour”, and of the elderly, children and those with special needs, is to be ended on principles of equality, justice and affirmative action (PDF p.248-249). Citizenship is defined by the Nakba: those who remained “were made citizens without the genuine constituents of citizenship, especially equality”, and as a homeland minority equality must be based on justice, the righting of wrongs and recognition of their narrative, so that “This democratic citizenship that we seek is the only arrangement that guarantees individual and collective equality for the Palestinians in Israel” (PDF p.249-250); “civil service” and involvement in Israeli militarism are rejected as incompatible with equality. Historic reconciliation requires Israel to recognize the historical injustice of its establishment, accept responsibility for the Nakba and for war crimes and crimes of occupation in the Occupied Territories, recognize and implement the Right of Return under UN Resolution 194, end the Occupation and remove the settlements from all Arab territory occupied since 1967, and recognize Palestinian self-determination and an independent sovereign state and the homeland-minority rights of Palestinian citizens in Israel; it also requires Palestinians and Arabs to recognize the Israeli Jewish people’s right to self-determination (PDF p.250). The Holocaust passage already quoted in Chapter 2 stands in its appendix context here (PDF p.250-251). The future vision is “to create a democratic state founded on equality between the two national groups”, changing Israel’s definition from a Jewish state to a democratic state and annulling all laws discriminating on nationality, ethnicity or religion, first and foremost the laws of immigration and citizenship, with the hope of two independent democratic states, Palestine and Israel, joined by agreements guaranteeing free reciprocal movement, residence and employment (PDF p.251).
PDF p.252: blank page (confirmed against the original).
References (PDF p.253-265 / printed p.233-245): the bibliography is in four headed sections — an alphabetical main list (Abdo 2011 through Zureik 1979, 1981 and 2004, including the works credited throughout the Evidence section below), “Civil Society Reports and Press Releases” (Adalah’s reports, its Democratic Constitution and its May-July 2010 Makhoul press releases, Badil’s surveys, Baker 2009, B’Tselem’s Separation Barrier page, COHRE and Badil 2005, Hesketh and Zaher 2009, Human Rights Watch 2008, Khatib 2012, Mac Allister 2008, Mada al-Carmel’s Haifa Declaration and Shihadeh’s monitoring reports, and Sultany’s three Mada monitoring reports of 2003, 2004 and 2005), “Governmental, Organizational, and International Legal Documents and Reports” (the Jewish Agency constitution of 1929, the 1948 Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, Jaber al-Bassiouni Ahmed and Others v. The Prime Minister (2008), the Prime Minister’s Office press release of January 27, 2013 on the Begin recommendations, Shragai 2010, and the UN documents from Sub-Committee Two (1947) and Resolution 181 through the Human Rights Council flotilla report (A/HRC/15/21, September 27, 2010), UNRWA 2011 and the U.S. Department of State 2009), and “News Articles and Media Publications” (Haaretz, Jerusalem Post, Ynet, Al Jazeera English, the Electronic Intifada, BBC News and others, 2002-2013, the latest-dated being Gordon in Al Jazeera English, February 12, 2013).
PDF p.266: blank page (confirmed against the original).
Index (PDF p.267-275 / printed p.247-255): an alphabetical index keyed to printed page numbers (and to roman-numeral front-matter pages), whose longest entries are Arabs (Palestinian-Arabs), Citizenship, Israel, Zionism, the Israeli Incorporation Regime and Stateless Citizenship itself, the last keyed from the Preface through the Conclusion.
PDF p.276: blank page (confirmed against the original). The book ends here.

Key passages

“The moment has arrived for the world to say clearly: Enough of aggression, settlements and occupation.” (Stateless Citizenship (2013), PDF p.11, Mahmoud Abbas as quoted in the Preface)
“a state racially characterizing itself in its founding self-representation” (Stateless Citizenship (2013), PDF p.36, David Theo Goldberg as quoted)
“the necessary Otherizing that lies at the root of the concept and process of citizenship” (Stateless Citizenship (2013), PDF p.55 / printed p.35)
“patterns of institutional practices and more or less explicit cultural norms that define the membership of individuals and/or groups in the society and differentially allocate entitlements, obligations and domination” (Stateless Citizenship (2013), PDF p.61, Yasemin Soysal as quoted)
“To say today in the law that the State of Israel is the state of the Jewish people, means saying to 16% of the citizens of the State of Israel that they have no state and they are stateless” (Stateless Citizenship (2013), PDF p.93, Tawfik Toubi as quoted from Schmidt 2001)
“Empires have frontiers, but democracies have borders” (Stateless Citizenship (2013), PDF p.101, Adalah’s The Democratic Constitution as quoted)
“Racism is not apartheid and apartheid is not racism. Apartheid is a political system where racism is regulated in law through acts of parliament” (Stateless Citizenship (2013), PDF p.120, Uri Davis as quoted)
“Let us say yes to who or what turns up, before any determination, before any anticipation, before any identification” (Stateless Citizenship (2013), PDF p.132, Jacques Derrida as quoted)
“The Jews have enriched us. Why should we be angry with them” (Stateless Citizenship (2013), PDF p.154, Rashid Bey in Herzl’s Altneuland as quoted)
“there is no Israeli nation separate from the Jewish nation” (Stateless Citizenship (2013), PDF p.174, Justice Shimon Agranat in Tamarin v. State of Israel as quoted)
“Palestinian Arab citizenship in Israel can be characterized as existing in a ghetto” (Stateless Citizenship (2013), PDF p.191, Oren Yiftachel as quoted)
“it is through the granting of Israeli citizenship that Arabs are deemed stateless; it is through inclusion within the Israeli citizenship regime that they are excluded” (Stateless Citizenship (2013), PDF p.201)
“while the exception is, as we saw, an inclusive exclusion (which thus serves to include what is excluded), the example instead functions as an exclusive inclusion [which serves to exclude what is included]” (Stateless Citizenship (2013), PDF p.213, Giorgio Agamben as quoted)
“The Arab citizens in the State of Israel are a homeland minority” (Stateless Citizenship (2013), PDF p.240, Adalah’s The Democratic Constitution as reproduced in Appendix I)
“The citizenship of an Israeli citizen cannot be revoked” (Stateless Citizenship (2013), PDF p.244, Adalah’s The Democratic Constitution as reproduced in Appendix I)
“This democratic citizenship that we seek is the only arrangement that guarantees individual and collective equality for the Palestinians in Israel” (Stateless Citizenship (2013), PDF p.250, Mada al-Carmel’s The Haifa Declaration as reproduced in Appendix II)
“to create a democratic state founded on equality between the two national groups” (Stateless Citizenship (2013), PDF p.251, Mada al-Carmel’s The Haifa Declaration as reproduced in Appendix II)

Evidence the work relies on

The author’s eight years of first-hand research and posts with Haifa-based Palestinian civil society organisations, as presented in the Acknowledgments (PDF p.15-16).
Palestinian civil society research, analysis and statistics, and the Adalah and Mada al-Carmel documents republished in the appendices with permission (PDF p.16).
The historical and demographic literature cited in the Introduction, in particular Khalidi 1992 on the 1948 villages and refugees, Pappé 2006 on the 1948 war, Wakim 2001 on the internally displaced, and the UN Sub-Committee Two report of November 11, 1947 on the 1946 population (608,000 Jews and 1,237,000 Arabs) (PDF p.28-30).
The citizenship literature cited in Chapter 1 as read so far: Marshall 1950, Aristotle, McAfee 2000, Ben-Porat and Turner 2011, Schuck 2002, Isin 2002 and 2009, Turner 1990, Sassen 2002 and 2005, Soysal 1994, Somers 2006 and 2008, Ranciére 2004 and Kymlicka 2008, each as credited in the reading notes.
Adalah’s The Inequality Report: The Palestinian-Arab Minority in Israel (March 2011) and New Discriminatory Laws and Bills in Israel (June 2012), the documentary basis of Chapter 2’s legislative account, together with Mada al-Carmel’s Political Monitoring Reports and Shihadeh’s bi-monthly reports, each as credited in the reading notes (PDF p.71, p.81, p.89).
The settler-colonial literature cited in Chapter 2’s opening: Rodinson 2004, Herzl’s Altneuland (Herzl 1987), Kimmerling 2002a and 2008, Shafir 1996 and 1999, Piterberg 2008, and Ghanem 1998 and Sultany 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2007 for the levels analysis and the legal record, each as credited in the reading notes.
The Adalah press releases of May-July 2010 and Abeer Baker’s Adalah’s Review article (Spring 2009) that document the Makhoul case and the ‘security prisoner’ classification, and the operational-level record in this part: Hesketh and Zaher and Abu-Asbeh in Adalah’s Newsletter 63 (August 2009), Khatib 2012 on Arab women’s health, and the Industry, Trade and Labour Ministry and Central Bureau of Statistics 2008 employment and salary data (PDF p.104-113).
The land-law record in this part: Jiryis 1976 on the Emergency Regulations and the Absentee Property Law, Peretz 1958, Lehn and Davis 1988 on the ILA, and the Badil Survey on Palestinian Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons 2008-2009 on IDP numbers (PDF p.114-118).
The apartheid literature cited in Chapter 2’s close: Davis 1987 and 2003, Mac Allister in al-Majdal no. 38 (Summer 2008), Dugard’s 2007 Special Rapporteur report (A/HRC/4/17), the Convention on Apartheid (1973), CERD General Recommendation No. 19 (1995), Jamjoum 2009 and Yiftachel 2005 and 2011 (PDF p.118-126).
Derrida 2000, Derrida 2005 and Derrida and Dufourmantelle 2000 on hospitality, worked from Kant’s Toward a Perpetual Peace as cited (Kant 2002, 441), with Mohanty 1988 on centre and periphery, in Chapter 3 (PDF p.127-139).
Yakobson and Rubinstein, Israel and the Family of Nations (2009), the work Chapter 4 answers, with UNSCOP and Resolution 181 as the authors present them, and Flapan 1987 and Terry 1976 among the counter-sources Molavi cites (PDF p.141-149).
The Chapter 4 and 5 record in this part: Herzl’s Altneuland (Herzl 1987) and Terry 1976 on the denial of Palestinian existence; the Herzliya conference report in Massad (2003, 442-443) and Shragai’s 2010 Jerusalem master-plan report; the Shammas-Yehoshua debates in Kimmerling 2002b; Kothari’s 2002 Special Rapporteur report (E/CN.4/2003/5/Add.1); Tamarin v. State of Israel (1970), 26 P.D. I 197, and the 2003 and 2008 Israeli-nationality petitions in Avishai 2008 and Izenberg 2010; and the citizenship literature surveyed — Rouhana 1997, Ghanem 2001, Jiryis 1976, Zureik 1979 and 1981, Lustick 1980, Pappé 2011, Bishara 2004, Zreik 2008, Yiftachel 2002 and 2011, Jamal 2007, Peled 1992 and Shafir and Peled 2002, each as credited in the reading notes (PDF p.150-195).
The vision documents themselves: The Future Vision of the Palestinian-Arabs in Israel (High Follow-Up Committee), Adalah, The Democratic Constitution (March 2007), and Mada al-Carmel, The Haifa Declaration (May 2007), quoted and analysed at PDF p.99-102.
The Chapter 5 close and Chapter 6 record in this part: Rouhana and Sultany 2003 and Sultany 2003 on the new Zionist hegemony; Abdo 2011 on gendered, racialized citizenship; Arendt 1973 and Agamben 1998, 2000 and 2005 on the rights of man, homo sacer, the exception/example pair and the concept of a people; Salter 2006 and 2008 on the sovereign ban’s presentation and the border examination; Zreik 2008 on the state as Zionism’s instrument, with Ben-Gurion’s 1951 speech and 1946 Anglo-American Committee testimony as quoted in Zreik 2008 and Lustick 1980; Lustick 1980 on the Yishuv institutions and the new state’s aims toward its Arab minority; Kimmerling 2001 on the emergency’s ‘imperfections’ and on collective goods; Yakobson and Rubinstein 2009, 105-106, on the emergency as a ‘chronic disease’; Voegeli 2009 on the state’s constant re-creation; Levinas 2011 on the absolutely Other; and the wall and borders record in footnotes 10-11 (UNSC Resolution 242 and its 1382nd Meeting record, the ICJ ruling of July 9, 2004, B’Tselem’s Separation Barrier reporting, and Harel in Haaretz, July 14, 2009), each as credited in the reading notes (PDF p.196-237).
Appendix I itself: Adalah, The Democratic Constitution (20 March 2007), Introduction and Chapter Two clauses 1-15 as reproduced (PDF p.239-243).
Appendix I concluded and Appendix II itself: Adalah, The Democratic Constitution (20 March 2007), Chapter Two clauses 15 (items C-D), 16 and 18 and Chapter Three clauses 37-44, with explanatory notes 4-5, and Mada al-Carmel, The Haifa Declaration (15 May 2007), as reproduced (PDF p.244-251); and the book’s own References, in their four sections, as the record of the works cited across the whole book (PDF p.253-265).

Analysis

Molavi’s method in this part is a theoretical and historical framing built from the standpoint of the excluded: the Introduction defines the population and its paradox, surveys the existing literature’s accounts of deficient Arab citizenship, and proposes stateless citizenship as an account of how that deficiency is produced — through inclusion itself. Chapter 1 as read so far assembles the classical liberal model and its critics to establish that Otherizing is intrinsic to citizenship, so that the Israeli case is distinguished by its specific mechanisms rather than by exception as such. The empirical claims in this part rest on the cited historical literature and on Palestinian civil society research named in the Acknowledgments; the detailed Israeli evidence is assigned by the contents and the Organization summary to Chapter 2, not yet read.

In part 2 the method turns documentary: Chapter 1 closes by adopting Soysal’s incorporation regime, and Chapter 2 builds its account of the Zionist incorporation regime almost entirely from the record assembled by Palestinian civil society — above all Adalah’s Inequality Report and discriminatory-laws listings and Mada al-Carmel’s monitoring reports — layered over the settler-colonial historiography of Rodinson, Shafir and Piterberg. The chapter’s own analytical contributions in this range are its ordering devices: the legislative level separated from Ghanem’s three levels, the three observations on the post-2009 laws, and the circularity reading of Ben-Shalom, in which a challenge to the Jewish-state definition is voided by the prior acceptance the system requires. Its case narratives (October 2000, Acre 2008, Bishara, Zoabi, Makhoul) are presented as the regime’s mechanisms in operation rather than as exceptions to it.

In part 3 the documentary method completes Chapter 2 — the Makhoul case as the regime’s mechanisms in a single file, then budgets, land law and the unrecognized villages as the operative level — before the chapter makes its largest claim, that the regime is structured as an apartheid system, built not on the South African analogy but on Davis’s and Mac Allister’s legal definitions and on geographic continuity across the whole of Mandate Palestine. Chapter 3 is the book’s most purely theoretical chapter, importing Derrida wholesale and deriving the ‘Israeli-Arab’ category and the stateless-citizen conclusion from the host-guest structure rather than from new evidence. Chapter 4 changes register again, to close polemical reading: Yakobson and Rubinstein are quoted at length and answered point by point, with the historical record of Chapters 1-2 supplying the rebuttal.

In part 4 that polemic is completed — the Altneuland reading and the demographobia section turn Yakobson and Rubinstein’s own sources and premises against their comparative and majoritarian arguments — and Chapter 5 changes method again, to a literature survey organized as a genealogy: each predecessor’s formulation (incomplete identity, internal colonialism, control, incidental, ghettoized, hollow, ethnorepublican citizenship) is quoted at length, credited, and then marked at the point where, for Molavi, it stops — the survey’s criticisms of Lustick’s pluralist conclusion and of Shafir and Peled’s liberal reading are the places where the argument for a further paradigm is built, before that paradigm is introduced in the chapter’s continuation.

In part 5 that paradigm is stated outright and then given its anatomy. Chapter 5 closes the literature survey by isolating what every predecessor formulation shares — a citizenship described by what it lacks — and relocates the mechanism: exclusion is not a defect of the citizenship granted but its product, so the paradigm shift is from citizens without citizenship to statelessness through citizenship. Chapter 6 is the book’s most purely theoretical chapter after Chapter 3, built almost entirely from Arendt and Agamben read at length and in quotation, with Salter’s border examination substituted for Agamben’s camp as the spatial figure that fits citizens rather than non-citizens; the empirical load is carried by footnotes (the borders and wall notes) and by two Ben-Gurion texts reached through Zreik and Lustick. The Conclusion makes no new evidentiary claims and instead generalizes the paradigm outward — to liberal citizenship as such and to Western homogeneity politics — which is a programmatic extension the text itself marks as beyond its present scope. Appendix I begins the documentary appendices announced in the Acknowledgments, reproducing Adalah’s text in Adalah’s own words.

In the final part the book’s documentary apparatus is completed on its own terms. The two appendices reproduce the vision documents in selections — the ellipses are Adalah’s and Mada al-Carmel’s texts as Molavi prints them, not continuous texts — so Appendix I’s constitution is present as a programme (citizenship that cannot be revoked, multicultural institutions, restitution, return of the internally displaced, Waqf reinstatement, Bedouin traditional title and recognition of the unrecognized villages) rather than as a complete draft, and Appendix II’s Declaration supplies, in the signatories’ own words, the internal self-critique (sectarian structures, women’s marginalization) that Chapter 2’s summary did not carry. The References, read in full, confirm the evidentiary base recorded across the parts: the argument rests on Palestinian civil society documentation, the Israeli and international legal record, and the citizenship and settler-colonial literatures, with news reporting used for dated events; the Index, keyed to printed pages, maps the book’s own categories and is treated here as the author’s apparatus, not as evidence.

People, organizations, places and events

Shourideh Molavi, A. B. Yehoshua, Elia Zureik, Yoav Peled, Raef Zreik, Tamarin v. State of Israel, Jacques Derrida, Uri Davis, Karine Mac Allister, Alexander Yakobson, Amnon Rubinstein, Israel and the Family of Nations, Absentee Property Law, Sabri Jiryis, Don Peretz, John Dugard, Mahmoud Darwish, Simcha Flapan, BADIL, World Zionist Organization, Jewish Agency, Histadrut, Haganah, UN General Assembly Resolution 181, Adalah, Mada al-Carmel, High Follow-Up Committee, Or Commission, Prawer Plan, Koenig Report, Jewish National Fund, Land Day, Haifa, Will Kymlicka, Yasemin Soysal, Amal Jamal, As’ad Ghanem, Nimer Sultany, Theodor Herzl, Altneuland, Gershon Shafir, Maxime Rodinson, Law of Return, Citizenship Law (1952), Basic Laws, Acceptance to Communities Law, Nakba Law, Ben Shalom Case, Israeli Supreme Court, Azmi Bishara, Haneen Zoabi, Ameer Makhoul, Ittijah, Progressive List for Peace, Tawfiq Tubi, Operation Cast Lead, Freedom Flotilla, Vision Documents, Haifa Declaration, Democratic Constitution, Acre, Nahla Abdo, Mark Salter, Emmanuel Levinas, Giorgio Agamben, Hannah Arendt, Hanna Naqqara, B’Tselem, Separation wall

Concepts

Stateless Citizenship, Demographobia, Hollow Citizenship, Internal Colonialism, Israeli Incorporation Regime, Hostipitality, Israeli-Arab, Apartheid, Racial Palestinianization, Judaization, Nakba, State of Exception, Settler Colonialism, BDS movement, Right of Return, Indigeneity, Bare Life

How it relates to other sources

Molavi is cited in Nakba and Survival (Chapter 3, note 19) among the studies of the diminished citizenship of Arabs in Israel that followed the Mada report Citizens Without Citizenship, and in Rethinking Statehood in Palestine (Chapter 9 notes and bibliography) on citizenship in Israel.
Her 1948 figures — around 750,000 refugees, around 418 villages destroyed in Khalidi’s count, 156,000 remaining — stand beside Pappé’s account in The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine; her footnote 14 holds Khalidi’s, Pappé and Abu Sitta’s 531-village estimate and Morris’s 369 beside Khalidi’s 418 without resolving them.
Her account of Adalah’s The Democratic Constitution as a document she republishes in part complements Makdisi’s account of the same document in Palestine Inside Out: An Everyday Occupation.

Open questions

Appendix I is reproduced in selections, not in full: clause 17 and clauses 19-36 are not reproduced, the ellipses in the printed appendix mark the omissions, and clause 43 (PDF p.246) refers the decision on alternatives to restitution to a special authority “subject to article 20”, an article that is not among the selections reproduced, so what article 20 provides cannot be stated from this book.
The References entry for the Dugard report (PDF p.262) heads its General Assembly Resolution 60/251 reference “of 15 March 2005” where the corresponding entry for the Gaza Conflict fact-finding mission and the report’s own context give 2006; both stand as printed.
John Torpey is cited in the text (his Invention of the Passport, at PDF p.181; the Index keys Torpey to printed pp.161-162) and appears in the Index (PDF p.274), but no Torpey entry stands in the References list (PDF p.253-265); the citation stands as the text gives it.
Spellings and slips as printed in this part, recorded in the reading notes and not corrected: “defnce” for defence in the Morris 1999 References entry (PDF p.256), “Obama, Barak” in the Index (PDF p.272), the Land expropriation Index range beginning “iii-160” (PDF p.272), “Mistaravim” in the Index (PDF p.272), “Race Gender” without a comma in the Index entry for Abdo’s Women in Israel (PDF p.274), and the Supreme Court Justice Zoabi Index sub-entry carrying no page numbers (PDF p.271).
The Khoury item in footnote 63 (part 2) is dated November 15, 2011 there; the References list the same Haaretz item, “Haifa U. students protest ban on Israeli Arab MK who sailed on Gaza flotilla”, at November 15, 2010 (PDF p.264, confirmed against the original). Both dates stand as printed in their places, with the Eyadat item in the same footnote and the same References page also at November 15, 2010.
Figures 2-3 (PDF p.19-20) are maps; their captions, sources and density scales were read and checked against the original, but their mapped detail is image-only in the text copy.
The text’s statement that the remaining Palestinians had “endured a century of British imperialist rule” (PDF p.29) is as printed in the reading notes; no basis for the century figure is given in the range read.
The village-count disagreement recorded at PDF p.28-29 (418 in Khalidi’s count in the text; 531 in the Khalidi, Pappé and Abu Sitta estimates and 369 in Morris’s, in footnote 14) is held as recorded, not resolved.
The Or Commission’s formation is given as November 8, 2000 in the Introduction (PDF p.33) and as September 29, 2000 in Chapter 2 (PDF p.87, as printed in the original, before the October clashes had concluded); both dates stand as printed in their places.
Operation Cast Lead’s span is given as “around twenty-three days” in the main text (PDF p.89-90) and as December 27, 2008 to January 28, 2009 in footnote 49 (PDF p.90); both stand as printed.
The UN Human Rights Council flotilla report is dated September 23, 2010 in the main text (PDF p.96) and September 27, 2010 in footnote 61 (A/HRC/15/21). All stand as printed.
Zoabi’s Haifa University campus ban (footnote 63, PDF p.97): the footnote dates the ban to May 2011, but the Haaretz report it cites of Zoabi visiting the campus despite the ban (Fadi Eyadat, “Arab MK Zuabi visits Haifa University despite campus ban”) is dated November 15, 2010 — before the May 2011 date given for the ban — and the other item cited in the same footnote (Jack Khoury) is dated November 15, 2011. The May 2011 ban date and the November 15, 2010 report date conflict as printed and are held side by side, not resolved.
The pension revocation at PDF p.96: the text says only that in March 2011 the Knesset plenum voted to formally revoke “the parliamentary pension received by a former Knesset member”; the member is not named. The surrounding passage is on Azmi Bishara, so the member is very likely Bishara, but that identification is an inference from context, not a stated fact, and is not recorded as fact on any page.
Spellings as printed in this part, recorded in the reading notes and not corrected: “Disapora” for Diaspora in the Sultany quotation (PDF p.91, confirmed against the original), “Minster of Finance” (PDF p.72).
Badil’s Survey figures in footnote 109 (PDF p.115): approximately 335,000 persons displaced in the 1948 Nakba in the group displaced in the area that became Israel, and 47,610 registered IDPs in the pre-1967 Israeli territories by 1950, stand beside the main text’s estimated 40,000 to 75,000 ‘present absentees’ (PDF p.115), Peretz’s thirty thousand internal fleers as quoted (PDF p.115), and the Introduction’s around 360,000 internally displaced persons (PDF p.22). All stand as printed in their places; the footnote itself states no single authoritative academic source exists for these populations.
Chapter 4 footnote 8 (PDF p.146) lists, among massacres preceding and following the Dir Yassin Massacre of April 1948: Iqrit (December, 1951), Al-Tireh (July, 1953), Abu Ghosh (September, 1953), Kufr Qassem (October, 1956) and Acre (June, 1965) — the dates as printed, several of them years after 1948, held as printed and not reconciled with the footnote’s framing.
Footnote 83 (PDF p.105) dates the Adalah press release on the proposed Prisons Ordinance amendment to June 28, 2010, while its URL carries the file date 28_06_11; both stand as printed.
The Deir Yassin massacre toll in this part — “over 200 Arabs killed” (PDF p.146) — stands beside Said’s 250 women and children on the Deir Yassin page; Molavi spells the village “Dir Yassin” in this part.
Spellings and slips as printed in this part, recorded in the reading notes and not corrected: “one if its first steps” (PDF p.114), “as the the second largest employer” (PDF p.108), “moqsue” for mosque in footnote 103 (PDF p.111), “crimes against of humanity” (PDF p.124), “identifies himself as as a ‘Palestinian-Hebrew’” in footnote 120 (PDF p.120), and “Simha Flapan” (PDF p.146) against the spelling Simcha Flapan used on the existing Simcha Flapan page.
Spellings and slips as printed in this part, recorded in the reading notes and not corrected: “Palestinan-Arabs” (PDF p.153, confirmed against the original), “either in the country as a whole of at least in a part of it” (Yakobson and Rubinstein 2009, 71, as quoted, PDF p.162, confirmed against the original), “Mizrachim” for Mizrahim (PDF p.195, confirmed against the original), and the duplicated gloss “‘nationalism’ (leumit), ‘nationalism’ (lemanut)” in the Shammas quotation (PDF p.169).
The Military Administration’s span is given as 1948-1969 in Chapter 4’s close (PDF p.165) and as 1948-1966 / ending in 1966 in earlier parts of the book; both stand as printed in their places.
Spellings and slips as printed in this part, recorded in the reading notes and not corrected: “statelesssness” with a triple s (PDF p.204, confirmed in the text copy), “en genera” for en general (PDF p.228), “Security Counsel” for Security Council and “detraction” in footnote 10’s Resolution 242 discussion (PDF p.218-219), and the appendix’s spelling “Kufr Qassem” (PDF p.240) against the spelling Kafr Qasim used elsewhere in the wiki.
Footnote 11 (PDF p.219-220) gives the wall as around 709 kilometres long, twice the length of the Green Line, with concrete parts 8 meters high, around twice the height of the Berlin Wall; the figures stand as printed, sourced in the footnote to B’Tselem’s Separation Barrier reporting.

Coverage

PDF p.1-276 of 276, read in full in parts 1-6 of 6

Read Palestine

Explorer