172 chapter five posits a multidimensional analytic framework to show ways in which the three spheres intersect one another to generate structural inequality. What is revealed in this multifaceted framework is that the “hollow citizenship” of Arabs is not solely the product of a single element of state-minority relations, whether it is socio-political, economic, or ethnocultural, but must instead be understood as the product of a combination of all of these factors. Indeed, Jamal explains that these frameworks of exclusion “feed off and promote one another in such a way that makes the treatment of any one of them in isolation ineffectual in comprehensively explaining majority-minority relations in Israel” (Jamal 2007, 489). Israeli political scientist Yoav Peled posits a similar relationship between the character of the state and the nature of its citizenship. Unlike Rouhana, Ghanem and Yiftachel, Peled rejects definitions of the Israeli political system as an ethnocracy, preferring to describe its as an ethnic democracy in that it combines the domination of a particular ethnic group over another with democratic structures and processes, including the extension of rights and privileges to individuals and collectives (Peled 1992, 432). Specifically, Peled considers Israel as “one successful example of a democratic yet deeply divided society” and actually goes on to read the citizenship status of Arabs citizens as “one of the key features of Israeli democracy.” Already, we see here that the historical, political and ideological reading of the Zionist settler-colonial project provided by Peled is deeply divergent from the above authors. This includes both Peled’s reading of Israel as a divided yet ‘democratic’ society, and his account of Arab citizenship as one of its validating features which indicate a more mitigated and softened understanding of the exclusionary dynamics of Israeli citizenship than the ones posited by the above scholars.29 29 Nira Yuval-Davis and Nahla Abdo have recently written on the problematics of ethno-centric readings of the Israeli political regime. Yuval-Davis explains that the notion of an ‘ethnic democracy’ creates a normalization of Jewish ethno-national domination in Israel by depicting its democratic structures as reconcilable with the construction of Israel as a Jewish state. She points to Yiftachel’s warning of the “softening illusion of a ‘nationstate’ and ‘democratic citizenship’” of Israel and argues against a “certain complacency that sometimes appears when analyzing Israel as a post-Zionist, liberal, multiculturalist society and/or even as an ethnic democracy.” Such complacency, or “blindness,” explains YuvalDavis, maintains the illusion of a Jewish and democratic Israel and “prevents most Israelis [and we may add most Western observers and scholars], both emotionally and analytically, from understanding some epistemological and ontological aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict” (see Yuval-Davis 2003, 193). Further, in a recent publication examined more closely later in this chapter, Nahla Abdo takes this argument further and argues that “[e]thnocentric approaches … are problematic on all counts: at the levels of gender, race/ethnicity, and class. …. Ethnic-centered approaches, whether they describe the Israeli state as ‘ethnic