Israeli Palestinian Citizenship Shifted From Colonial to Political Apartheid

Palestinian citizenship in Israel has always been "colonial settler citizenship," not equal, according to Professor Areej Sabbagh-Khoury. This status emerged after 1948, when most Palestinians were displaced, and the new state prioritized Jewish land control, immigration, and a Jewish majority. Palestinians who remained received citizenship and some political rights, including voting, but within a clear hierarchy between Jews and Palestinians.

Sabbagh-Khoury defines "colonial settler citizenship" as a political structure where one national group, through state institutions, holds excessive power over land, resources, and public space, while the indigenous group holds formal citizenship without equal national standing. This structure perpetuates the colonial hierarchy. The concept of "Jewish supremacy" refers to this power imbalance, not individual superiority. For instance, Jews arriving under the Law of Return gain citizenship easily, unlike displaced Palestinians and their descendants. The state defines itself as embodying the Jewish people's self-determination, with its land, institutions, and policies designed to maintain Jewish majority and control.

The disqualification of Sami Abu Shehadeh from running for the Knesset is presented not as creating inequality, but as a potential shift in how the existing hierarchy operates. The author suggests a move from a citizenship within Jewish national supremacy, which still allowed Palestinians limited space for organization and representation, to a situation where state institutions begin dictating who can represent Palestinians and the boundaries of Palestinian politics. This is exemplified by the disqualification of Abu Shehadeh, the Unified Arab List, the Joint List, and Ofer Cassif by the Election Committee.

Article 7a of the Basic Law: Knesset limits political participation by prohibiting denial of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, thus framing Palestinian participation within constitutional limits that challenge the state's national structure. Historically, the judiciary set a high bar for disqualifications, preserving some space for Palestinian political action. However, if this bar is lowered, it signifies a move to a new phase. The paradox of Palestinian citizenship has been having formal citizenship in a state with preferential Jewish national status, while still being able to form parties, elect representatives, and use parliament for opposition.

The disqualification of Abu Shehadeh could signal the erosion of a crucial limit: that institutions with a Jewish majority did not have unlimited power to decide who represents Palestinians. This erosion could lead to "political apartheid," where the Jewish Israeli group not only elects its representatives but also uses state institutions to determine which Palestinian representatives are allowed to run. This means citizens can vote, but within a political space defined by others, and organize only within limits set by institutions controlled by the dominant Jewish national group. The author concludes that this issue transcends Abu Shehadeh and his party, questioning whether the existing hierarchy in land, immigration, resources, and state institutions will now extend to political representation, shifting from control over the conditions of Palestinian citizenship to dictating who can speak for them in the Knesset.