Chapter Two

Citizenship

The idea of citizenship has its origins in ancient Greece and Rome; since that time
the concept has evolved to encompass several meanings and at times even conflicting
ones. Citizenship denotes to a membership status in a nation-state. The term citizenship
has evolved and been shaped by the social and civil revolutions of the 18th century and
the principles that arose with the Enlightenment. The Declaration of the Right of Man
and of the Citizen of 1789 which was a direct outcome of the French Revolution asserts
that human rights are universal and should be granted to individuals and collectives.
The representatives of the French people, organized as a National
Assembly... have determined to set forth in a solemn declaration the
natural, unalienable, and sacred rights of man, in order that this
declaration, being constantly before all the members of the Social body,
shall remind them continually of their rights and duties; in order that the
acts of the legislative power, as well as those of the executive power, may
be compared at any moment with the objects and purposes of all political
institutions and may thus be more respected, and, lastly, in order that the
grievances of the citizens, based hereafter upon simple and incontestable
principles, shall tend to the maintenance of the constitution and redound to
the happiness of all.1
'The declaration of Rights of Man and the Citizen' has affirmed that the role of the
government is to accept and safeguard those inalienable rights through formulating laws
and instituting legal mechanisms which are accessible to all citizens. Article 6 of the
declaration asserts that all citizens are "equal in the eyes of the law." The concept of
citizenship has progressed since then to include not only a certain cluster within a society
but 'all' members of the society.

1

The Declaration of the Right of Man and the Citizen, retrieved on Jan. 2014:
http://www.hrcr.org/docs/frenchdec.html

Citizens are members of a nation-state; the joining of the concept of citizenship

with the modern idea of the nation-state has created some tension since the concept of
citizenship is that of openness, universality and equality while the concept of the nationstate is that of closure, exclusion and a sealed territory. The term faces more challenges
with the modern era, as nations-states are no longer a homogenous entity; additionally,
with the increase in migration and the movement of people from one region to another, it
has become almost impossible to seal borders in the face of those who seek new
opportunities in new lands.
This chapter is primarily devoted to studying the situation of Palestinian
Jerusalemites; Palestinians in East Jerusalem are non-citizens of the State of Israel.
Although contested internationally, the Jurisdiction of the State of Israel is present in East
Jerusalem and affects the lives of Palestinians on every level. The state of Israel has
classified Palestinian Jerusalemites of East Jerusalem as permanent residents. In order
to understand the implications of Israel's authority on this 'invented' social category, I
start this chapter by giving a brief overview of the definition of citizenship and how the
different discourses on citizenship have informed our understanding on the topic to this
day. I then give a brief overview on how the concept of citizenship has developed in the
State of Israel. The final section addresses Palestinian Jerusalemites status as permanent
residents. I start by contesting the use of the term 'permanent residents' to describe East
Jerusalemites as the term is blatantly misleading. The final part of this chapter examines
Israeli citizenship laws and how they have been enacted to systematically ensure that the
rights of Palestinian Jerusalemites are constantly jeopardized; henceforth depriving them
of their rights in their ancestral home.

2.1 Definition: Citizenship:

As mentioned above the concept of citizenship varies depending on the field of
research or the analytical lens that the researcher adopts. In this chapter I examine the
concept of citizenship as it relates to the law, as a normative analytical tool and finally as
a sociological concept. Studying citizenship laws sheds a light on the reasoning behind
state's decisions of exclusion and inclusion. From an international law perspective, it is
the prerogative of the state to deal with its internal affairs especially on issues that pertain
to citizenship where "states are deemed fully sovereign with respect to decisions about
whom to admit to membership..."2 In other words, the nation-state is a membership
organization who has a legitimate rule within its boundaries and thus has the power close
up membership opportunities as it sees fit. "The modern state continues to exercise
jurisdictional authority, the power to sanction and to legitimately use force vis-a-vis those
in its territory. Full citizenship in the state remains a very important form of membership,
security, status and power."3
Citizenship in the legal sense is a legal status within a confined nation-state which
the state authorizes to those it declares as citizens. This status is restricted since it is
assigned only to those who are considered members of the nation-state. Thus, citizenship
is a political membership that is defined through full inclusion of individuals in a nation
2

Bosniak, Linda, The Citizen and the Alien: Dilemmas of Contemporary Membership, NJ: Princeton
University Press, 2006, p.32.
3
Cohen, Jean L. Changing Paradigms of Citizenship and the Exclusiveness of the Demos, International
Sociology, 1999, 14: 245, p.257

state; this inclusion is manifested through rights that are bestowed unto the citizens by the
state and hence confirms the individuals inclusion into the society of members. These
political practices create political relationships and groupings within members of the
society.
Citizenship is an essential element of democracy and a universal feature of the
modern state.4 Citizenship affords membership in a nation- state; this stipulates that the
state has an essential role to play in determining what constitutes citizenship. The concept
of citizenship is a democratic venture which came into fruition as a result of the civil and
political upheavals that started in the 18th century. I will show below that the role of the
nation-state towards its citizens varies depending on the discourse that is adopted by the
state. Suffice here to say that the nation-state is the major actor on defining who is a
citizen; this process is maintained through constitutionally defining a citizen through an
inclusion and exclusion process which is stipulated by state laws and is maintained
through state bureaucracy and its institutions. "Once imbued with normative and practical
authority, categories that describe citizens and non-citizens are institutionalized and take
on more authority and legitimacy5
Due to the fact that the nation-state is the main arbiter on citizenship status
complicates incorporation into a polity since citizenship has been linked with nationality
and has thus become a tool of exclusion and inclusion. This union of the two concepts
(nationality and citizenship) has consequently led to provide a leeway for the nation-state
as it could deprive members living in its own territories of citizenship status on its own
discretion and for a number of reasons: the pretext of security, maintaining cultural

4

Cohen, Elizabeth F. Semi-Citizenship in Democratic Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

2014, p. 13.
5
Ibid, p. 18

integrity and ideological differences are but a few examples that are used to include and
exclude individuals from the citizenship process.
The normative definition of citizenship can be seen as a benchmark for "a
universalist ethic for the inclusion and incorporation of 'everyone'."6 Of course there are
several challenges to the normative definition of citizenship as it preaches uniformity
which many theorists have criticized as unrealistic and lacks specificity of the nationstate. Additionally, with democratization and globalization this concept has become
hollow as it preaches universalism through equal rights to all people yet at the same time
accepts the rights of the nation-state to include and exclude people/group as it pleases.
The nation-state plays a vital role in determining the degrees of citizenship depending on
its inclusion and exclusion mechanisms and thus it is not a coincidence that we find
gradients of citizenship in the nation-state. It is for this reason that the study of
citizenship should engulf the two extreme spectrums of citizenship and non-citizenship as
both terms are affirmed and defined by one another. Thus, it is crucial to study
citizenship not as a normative concept but rather as is perceived in practice. When the
citizenship debate is positioned as a normative endeavor instead of being located in state
practices, we are prone to accept the conflicting and non-egalitarian characteristic that the
term citizenship embodies. Additionally, it is necessary to study the behavior of states in
terms of its inclusion and exclusion preferences and how they define membership in their
polity.
The sociological definition of citizenship is vital to our understanding of
citizenship as it sheds a light on how the legal and normative conceptions of citizenship
are implemented on the ground and what kind of problems appear in practice. As the

6

Bosniak, 2006, p.2

nation-state bestows rights over different strata of the society such as women, different
ethnicities, workers and children, it by default incorporates a larger proportion of the
population in its membership project. This diversity in the social fabric of the nation-state
has resulted in a categorization of citizenship. Categorization implies a hierarchy or a
status that is arranged in a gradient form with citizenship status on one end while on the
other end the non citizenship status and in between there are several degrees of
citizenship who are warranted certain rights but are excluded from others.
In his book 'Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany'7 Roger Brubaker
traces the historical development that led to the birth of the modern nations of Germany
and France and consequently their diverse view on the definition of citizenship. In his
study, Brubaker demonstrates how citizenship is defined through state perception of itself
which in turn informs its citizenship laws. According to him, the concept of citizenship
originated from two different ideologies; the first one is jus soli which assigns citizenship
through residency. The other is jus sanguinis which assigns citizenship through
bloodline. Brubaker explains how France adopted the jus soli principle as it was informed
by its struggle to modern nation building. Membership for the French was based on
Equality, Fraternity and Liberty; as a result, citizenship is based on shared ideologies in
the confines of the nation-state.
Jus sanguinis originated during the Romantic era of the 18th century; it is "a
volkish form of ethno- nationalism membership rule, a view constructed around
formalized expectations of specific styles of participation in civic life that cannot be

Brubaker, Roger, Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany, Mass: Harvard University Press,
1998.

achieved by individuals who are not very directly of that community."8 The writings of
Herder and Rousseau inspired this ethno-nationalist ideology which declares that there
are certain 'volkish' sentiments that differentiate one social group from the other; such
sentiments could materialize in culture, religion or language which in turn is responsible
of producing cultural homogeneity and belief that is different as systems of belief differ
from one polity to the other.
The modern German nation-state adopted the jus sanguinis conception of
citizenship as it was informed by its own historical experience which saw individuals
identifying themselves as Germans even though they lived outside its territorial
boundaries while at the same time there were ethnic minorities within the state
boundaries who did not perceive themselves as Germans. For this reason, the historical
experience of Germany dictated that they perceive citizenship differently from France,
and corresponded to an affiliation of its members through bloodline. "In contemporary
context, this linking of virtue and participation corresponds best to the Jus sanguinis
citizenship laws found in Israel, Japan, and, to a lesser degree, Germany as well."9
One way to examine citizenship is through studying those who do not qualify for
membership because membership is an inclusive as well as exclusive mechanism. Weber
argues that open and closed relationships are inherent in societies. Reasons for enclosure
may vary; in some cases it is for achieving economic or social gains. In other instances
closed relationships seek exclusivity and a sense of superiority.10 These closures are
exclusionary mechanisms for the purpose of constructing boundaries between those who

8

Cohen, Elizabeth, 2014, p.45.

ibid
10
Weber, Max, Economy and Society, (ed. Roth. Guenther & Wittich Claus), Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1978, p341-348.
9

are in and those who are out. It "advances efforts by the powerful to exclude less
powerful people from the full benefits of joint enterprises, while facilitating efforts by
underdogs to organize for the seizure of benefits denied."11 Social closure is a tool that is
used to build identities which separate one social group from the other.
Accordingly, it becomes apparent that the idea of inclusion presupposes that of
exclusion; in other words, inclusion is reified through exclusion. Thus, the nation-state
maintains its authority on the non-citizens by means of including them through an
institutionalization of their exclusion. This incorporation into the national project "has
affected the national citizenry through the establishment of citizenship rights and national
institutions."12 Citizenship rights as we shall see below affect not only citizens of the
nation-state but also those who are categorized as non-citizens.
Modern citizenship is paradoxical because on the one hand it is a democratic
venture that stresses universalism while at the same time the process of granting
citizenship is assigned to the nation-state which has the power to grant/exclude
individuals of membership and consequentially of rights. "Apparently the juridical and
democratic components of the citizenship principles are in tension: the former
universalizing and inclusive but apolitical and individualistic, the latter political,
internally egalitarian and uniform but externally exclusive and particularizing."13 Arendt
claims that individuals do not "enjoy rights by virtue of their humanity, but by virtue of

11

Tilly, Charles, Durable Inequality, LA: University of California Press, 1998, p.6
Soysal, Yasemin N. Limits of Citizenship, Chicago: The University of Chicago, 1994, p.31
13
Cohen, Jean, 1999, p. 250
12

their membership in the major political institution of the day a particular, territorially
based nation-state..."14
Rights form political relationships. These rights are experienced through a set of
rules, "once imbued with normative and practical authority, categories that describe
citizens and non-citizens are institutionalized and take on more authority and
legitimacy15
Citizenship rights are different from other rights because they are granted to
members only. Rights "exist when one party can effectively insist that another deliver
goods, services, or protections, and third parties will act to reinforce (or at least not
hinder) their delivery."16 Hence citizenship rights are rights that are granted to persons
because they are considered members of the polity which afford them those rights.
In the following section, I examine the three discourses of citizenship and how
each was developed favoring one of the four core elements of citizenship over the others.
These four elements which could be termed components of citizenship are: rights, duties,
participation and identity.17
2.2 Discourses on citizenship:
There are three discourses on citizenship that inform our understanding of how
the concept has evolved through time. Of course, we do not find these discourses as such
in reality since the nation-state tend to tailor its own definition of citizenship according to
its historical trajectory and specificity. One could say that these three discourses are more

14

Shafir, G. & Peled, Y. Being Israeli: The Dynamics of Multiple Citizenship, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2002, p.72
15
Cohen, Elizabeth, 2014, p. 18
16
Tilly, Charles, Where Do Rights Come From? In Skocpol, Theda (ed.) Democracy, Revolutions, and
History, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999.
17
Delanty, Gerard, Citizenship in a Global Age: Society, Culture, Politics, PA: Open University Press,
2000, p.9

like 'ideal types' that are found in different combinations. The three discourses are the
liberal, ethno-nationalist (communitarian) and republican.
2.2.1 Liberal Citizenship:
Liberal citizenship was born in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Liberal ideology
is based on equality to all members of the society. Through granting rights to all, liberals
believed that a just and egalitarian society is produced where security, freedom and
prosperity is attainable to all. Thus, rights are fundamental to the liberal discourse,
because when all members of the society are bestowed with equal rights then it becomes
possible to pursue ones own interests. The only limitation regarding individual freedom
rests on the possible infringement of the rights of other citizens; as long as freedom to all
is maintained each has the right to pursue his/her life as he/she sees fit. If civil equality is
coupled with political equality then each individual within the society will be able to seek
his/her own version of the good life. Accordingly, for liberals the role of the state is
somewhat neutral; however, they assert the fundamentality of a separation of power as it
thwarts despotic tendencies.
Liberalism was the dominant political discourse in western societies for about two
centuries because of "...its ability to tolerate religious, cultural, and political diversity by
creating a self-limiting political realm respectful of individual rights and an institutional
framework within which polarizing disputes are avoided by permitting the political
expression of only those conceptions of the good that are not monopolistic."18
In the liberal discourse, much emphasis is on the individual. The individual is the
producer of the society and not the other way around. Liberal thought stresses the idea of
social contract by which the individual is willing to give up some of his freedoms to the

18

Shafir & Peled, 2002, p. 4

state in return for protection. Locke asserts that people are willing to relinquish some of
the freedoms because the "enjoyment of life, liberty and property is uncertain in the state
of nature, as there is no common law, no judge or arbiter in disputes and no power to
enforce decisions."19 He asserts nonetheless, that the power of the state should be limited
and should focus primarily on the protection of its members. The main components of
liberal thought are: (i) individualism, (ii) universalism, (iii) rights, (iv) reason, (v)
equality and (vi) property. "Thus for liberal citizenship, the individual becomes a member
of the political community through the granting of universal rights which secure for the
individual the freedom to life, liberty and property."20 In liberal thought the individual
has the capacity to reason; and even in the state of nature, reason "teaches all mankind,
who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm
another in his life, health, liberty or possessions."21 Moreover, the Universalist aspect is
vital because it secures freedom to all, which makes it a mechanism to secure
membership to all as well as a principle of justice.
The fundamental role of the liberal state is to accord rights to its citizens through
the institutionalization of laws that safeguard and protect these rights. In his book
'Citizenship and Social Class,' T. H. Marshall argues that citizenship which is the
manifestation of democratic rights has been the main catalyst of inclusion to an
increasing number of citizens in western democracies. Marshall bases his study on
England and he outlines the evolution of rights with the civil rights being established first
in the eighteenth century, the political rights in the nineteenth century and social rights to

19

Lister, Michael, & Pia, Emily, Citizenship in Contemporary Europe, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press, 2008, p.10.
20
ibid
21
Locke [1683] 1993, p.117

follow in the 20th century. Marshall identifies these three groups of rights as bundles with
the civil rights being composed "of the rights necessary for individual freedom liberty
of person, freedom of speech, thought and faith, the right to own property and to
conclude valid contracts, and the right to justice."22 Political rights granted the citizens
"the right to participate in the exercise of political power, as a member of a body invested
with political authority or as an elector of the members of such body."23 Finally social
rights cover a wide range of rights "from the right to a modicum of economic welfare and
security to the right to share to the full in the social heritage and to live the life of a
civilized being according to the standards prevailing in the society."24
Marshall argues that the accessibility of rights have dismantled differences that
previously existed between social groups as a result of legal barriers and social custom.
This, he claims has enabled the incorporation of new social groups into the state.
Marshall's study on citizenship is influential because it "introduces into the study of
citizenship the element of social change that was missing from the more one-dimensional
and static normative approaches."25
2.2.2 Ethno-nationalist (Communitarianism) Citizenship:
Ethno-nationalist citizenship has emerged in defiance to liberal citizenship; one of
the basic conviction of ethno-nationalist is that citizenship ideology is informed by the
environment in which it is formed and for this reason culture, history and common beliefs
all contribute to the development of public identities which in turn informs how a
community perceives itself and the members of the society.

22

Marshall, T. H. Class, Citizenship and Social Class, Pluto Classics, 1987, p.78
ibid
24
ibid
25
Shafir & Peled, 2002, p. 9
23

Ethno-nationalism is an old concept however, it was revitalized in the 60s and 70s of the
last century to advocate social cohesion and to a certain degree it has gained increased
recognition recently. Many scholars have asserted the interrelatedness between history,
culture and identity. In order to understand the association between citizenship and
identity, social historians went on to "investigate... the political processes that intervene
between the routine formation of social relations and interests, on the one hand and
public articulation of identities and programs on the other."26
Ethno-nationalism stresses connectedness between cultural and ethnic belonging
with citizenship. Thus, membership in the state is dictated by such belonging and
becomes a prerequisite for obtaining rights; hence, identity and duties are core values of
ethno-national citizenship. Hegels critique of Kant and Lock's liberal ideology
challenges the Universalist and ahistorical conception of morality and justice and asserts
that those conceptions are born within a social context which nurture them and provide
their validity. "For communitarians, morality is something which is rooted in practice in
the particular practices of actual communities"27
For communitarians, the community precedes the individual and the nation-state.
They perceive the bond as something sacred that is carried down from one generation to
the other through bloodline. The communitarian ideology puts the community's interests
before that of the individual. Furthermore, "they argue that the individual is embedded in
and constituted by social formations and communities."28 For communitarians, living in a
community instills certain experience, beliefs and ties between each member of the

26

Tilly, Charles, Citizenship, Identity and Social History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996,
p.4.
27
Kukathas, Chandran, and Pettit, Philip, Rawls: A Theory of Justice and its Critics, Oxford: Polity Press,
1990, p.95
28
Lister & Pia, 2008, p.17.

society; thus, the specificity of the culture and history of a specific place is different from
another. For this reason, communitarians perceive the Universalist aspect of citizenship
as unacceptable.
Communitarians criticize liberals' emphasis on the individual because they
believe that if a community prioritizes the needs of the individual over the common good
then it is doomed to perish. Moreover, communitarians feel that traits such as identity and
culture are vital in the make-up of individuals within a polity. Consequently, this
diversity informs and shapes each community differently. Thus conceptions of justice and
rights are specific depending on shared understandings by members of a community and
for this reason cannot be universal as is claimed by liberals. Obligation is prioritized over
rights; a sense of belonging and membership is a precondition to receiving rights. A
citizen has an obligation towards his/her community. Therefore, duties open the
possibility for one's membership into a community.
Unlike liberals, communitarians believe that the state should not be neutral; they
believe that conceptions of good and justice are not something that members of the
community discover rather; it is an endeavor that is reached through nurturing and
guidance. "A communitarian state can and should encourage people to adopt conceptions
of the good that conform to the community's way of life, while discouraging conceptions
of the good that conflict with it."29 For liberals, however, justice is procedural which
means that rights and good are separated with "an abstract universal principles of justice
are established,"30 through the engendering of rights. The individual is free to define

29

Kymlicka, Will, Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction, NY: Oxford University Press
2000, p.220
30
Lister & Pia, 2008, p. 21

his/her conception of good as he/she pleases as long as he/she does not infringe upon the
rights of others.

2.2.3

Republican Citizenship:
Republicanism has its origins in the Greek polis where a citizen was privileged to

take part in the governance of the polity. "The very idea of the citizen can be traced back
to Aristotle's version of political membership rooted in duty. In The Politics he writes,
'the citizen whom we are asking to define is a citizens in the strictest sense and his
special characteristic is that he shares in the administration of justice and of offices.'"31
Evidently, citizenship did not include all the inhabitants of the polity, on the contrary it
was endowed to a selected few; slaves and women for example were excluded. In order
to pursue freedom, republicans believe that freedom from domination is best secured if
members of the society take an active role through self-governing. Republicans believe
that the process of public participation and deliberation with other members results in the
nurturing of civic virtue. Civic virtue are the traits that are needed for the production of a
healthy community; thus republicans believe that when the individual leaves the matters
of the private in the private realm and discloses his civic virtues in the public sphere then
a better community is achieved through the betterment of its citizenry. "Thus, republican
citizenship prioritizes participation as the means by which we secure our freedom,

31

Cohen, Elizabeth, 2014, p. 43

develop our relationships with our fellow citizens and enhance our individual capacities
and skills."32
Civic duty is the most essential characteristic of republican thought and it is for
this reason that public deliberations and participation is stressed. Citizenship is produced
through the act of participation in public affairs. When participating in the public realm,
republicans believe that the individual sheds his/her concerns of the private realm and the
interests of the family and extends his concern to engulf the society at large. Republicans
are concerned with rights of the individuals and they believe that participation in the
public sphere is the practice by which these rights are upheld. Contrary to liberals who
seek negative liberty of its members, republicans feel that a healthy society is one in
which its members are involved in self-governing. For republicans, "participation is the
means by which both freedom and membership are created and sustained."33
Hannah Arendt is one of the advocates of republican citizenship. For Arendt,
citizenship is "the right to have rights."34 Building on the Greek conception of citizenship
and civic virtue, Arendt believes that human beings become better members of the
society when they come together in public and act in concert. In The Human Condition,
she explains that "what first undermines and then kills political communities is the loss of
power and final impotence"35 Thus power for Arendt is the ability of humans to come
together and act in concert; it comes to life either by word or action. "Power is actualized
only where words are not empty and deeds not brutal, where words are not used to veil
intentions but to disclose realities, and deeds are not used to violate and destroy but to

32

Lister & Pia, 2008, p. 29

ibid, p. 23
34
Arendt, Hannah, Origins of Totalitarianism, NY: A Harvest Book, 1968
35
Arendt, Hannah, The Human Condition, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1958, p.200.
33

establish relations and create new realties."36 Arendt brings the analogy of the Greek
polis because to her it represents the space of appearance. Since this space of appearance
does not exist without the performance of action and words then Arendt warns that it is
vulnerable. The power through the coming together represents action; because it is here
were actions take place and for this reason she maintains that not all places of gathering
have power.
To conclude this section, each of the citizenship discourses discussed above have
prioritized one element of citizenship over the other: liberal citizenship privileges rights
because they believe that individual rights enable citizens to pursue their own conception
of good life free from coercion or hindrance. Additionally, membership is attained
through individual rights.

Communitarians, on the other hand, prioritize identity over

other elements of citizenship; membership into the community is achieved if there is a

bond that ties all members together. Additionally, they believe that duties and rights
should go hand in hand. At the end, the state has an obligation to steer its members into
conceptions of justice and good that it sees fit for its own polity. Lastly, republicans
prioritizes participation; for them freedom is the product of public participation and selfgovernment. Civic virtue is at the center of republican citizenship.
After reviewing the three central discourses on citizenship, in the following section I
examine the concept of citizenship as it pertains to the State of Israel.

36

Ibid