176 chapter five The authors locate the objective of a multicultural and democratic incorporation regime within the tension between varying elements of Israeli political culture and citizenship. It is this belief in the possibility of a democratic and multicultural incorporation regime within an exclusivist settler-colonial Zionist state framework that allows the authors to conclude by proposing “a non-hegemonic citizenship discourse” of “democratic multiculturalism” as “the most worthy incorporation regime achievable under present conditions” (Shafir and Peled 2002, 343). Holding that a non-hegemonic discourse of citizenship can be achieved under Israel’s existing social, political and conceptual structure neglects the real objectives of Zionism. As outlined in Chapter Two of this book, the Judaization project that lies at the root of the Zionist national project is, by definition, one of exclusion. It cannot genuinely coexist with the classical principles of equality, common possession, democratic participation, representation, inclusion, and multiculturalism. It seeks to create an exclusive state for the Jewish people, while simultaneously rejecting the rights, presence and history of the non-Jewish Other. If one considers the political Zionism, as we do here, through the lens of settler colonialism, where mechanisms of occupation and apartheid function in conjunction with (and are intensified by) one another, Shafir and Peled’s promise of a democratic multiculturalism surfacing under present conditions, present practices and present policies, most certainly must remain unfulfilled. We can conclude that the notions of a shrinking citizenship, a ghettoized citizenship, or a hollow citizenship, along with formulations such as substantive versus incidental citizenship, actual versus potential citizens, and republican versus liberal citizenship all point to an internal and irreconcilable disconnect between de jure and de facto citizenship status in Israel, including their own inherent contradictions. Despite their differing readings of the dynamics of the Israeli incorporation regime, all of these scholars distinguish, in one form or the other, between what can be deemed citizens and citizens without citizenship – the latter of which holds that citizenship can only be said to genuinely exist when it generates rights along with a profession of formal status. Absence of benefits and representation accompanying formal citizenship in the face of the Other contradicts its objective. For this reason, a person holding citizenship of this kind is a citizen without citizenship. Such a status is what one may call one-way citizenship, where the motion of interaction and exchange is not reciprocated or mutual. Here the common good and interests of the regime not only fail to include Palestinian-Arab citizens, but are instead achieved at their expense. Important to point out, however, is the specific