174 chapter five forms: a partial liberal citizenship for Palestinian-Arabs, and a republican citizenship for Jews. Both have formal citizenship rights, but only Jews can actively engage with and practice their citizenship by ministering to the common good. Thus, in considering republican, liberal as well as ethnonational discourses of citizenship, Peled holds that the extension of Arab citizenship into the realm of ethnic power relations shows that the determining feature of Israeli political culture is thereby best termed ethnorepublicanism. Because active participation in ‘reclaiming’ and ‘redeeming’ the land is constantly stressed in the Zionist project and because Jewish ethnicity is a fundamental prerequisite for any genuine participation in the Israeli political community along these lines, as non-Jews, Arabs in Israel are necessarily excluded from republican and full liberal citizenship. In other words, “they cannot belong to the ethnically defined community … [and] they cannot partake of Zionist civic virtue” (Peled 1992, 436). Here Arab citizenship is seen as governed by a principle of ethnorepublicanism, effectively limiting its development: [A] protective wall (so to speak) has been placed around Israel’s Arab citizens – a wall that separates them from both the Jewish citizens, who can attend to the common good, and the non-citizen Arabs of the occupied territories, who are Israel’s metics. Within the area confined by this wall, Arab citizens can securely enjoy (formally at least) the rights of liberal citizenship. They must not, however, challenge the existence of the wall itself (Peled 1992, 436). Israeli liberal-Zionism, therefore, provides a diluted and nominal membership to its Palestinian citizenry, that is effectively walled-in through a range of what Peled calls ethnorepublican policies and practices. Another version of this thesis was co-written by Peled a decade later, with Israeli sociologist Gershon Shafir. In this text, formal Arab-Jewish relations are used to similarly depict the State of Israel as an “ethnic democracy” or a “third rate democracy,” set apart from consociational (where groups have guaranteed representation) and majoritarian (where the majority decides on behalf of society as a whole) models of state representation (Shafir and Peled 2002, 31). With extensive reference to Soysal’s concept of incorporation regime, outlined in Chapter One of this book, the authors argue that citizenship cannot be limited to “a bundle of formal rights.” Rather, it ought to be conceived as an entire mechanism or regime of incorporation of individuals and collectives into state and social membership (Shafir and Peled 2002, 11). An account of key allocative structures and the associated discourse(s) of citizenship is, according to Shafir and Peled, part and parcel of any reading of an incorporation regime.