liberal citizenship: ambiguities and inconsistencies39 rendered irrelevant in relation to issues of minority rights as both types of old minorities are bestowed the right to accommodation (Kymlicka 2008, 10–12). He points out that both are granted various rights to self-government over traditional territory, along with linguistic and cultural rights in their respective public spaces. Therefore, international legal arguments for the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples similarly apply to other vulnerable populations recognized as old minorities. As the proceeding chapters will show, the category of national minorities is of particular relevance to our discussion. Originating mainly from Europe, the term ‘national minorities’ refers to the populations in this region who, during socially and politically disruptive periods of European state formation, had their homelands merged in whole or in part within larger state entities neighboured by a predominantly European population (Kymlicka 2008, 8).9 Kymlicka explains that, as a starting point, an unpolished way of differentiating ‘national minorities’ from ‘indigenous peoples’ is that the latter population was instead subjected to the colonialism and settlement of a distant colonial European power. Despite this distinction, such a legal and conceptual framework would nevertheless classify both populations as old or homeland minorities given their “historic presence on their traditional territory that predates the formation of the current state” (Kymlicka 2008, 9). As such, an accommodationist approach towards these communities is remedied by international legal texts, involving a variant of territorial autonomy, land claims, legal exemptions and linguistic and cultural rights. Both collectives are therefore distinguished from new minorities who, as a product of migration after the establishment of the state, compel a more integrationist approach by ­liberal-democratic states based on the aforementioned principles of nondiscrimination, social and civil rights, and amendments to common institutions so as to make it more accessible to and inclusive of the new minorities. Taken together, we see that the rights bestowed and the approaches of the governing establishment toward a population are deeply dependent on and formulated by the state-categorization and selfcategorization of that respective population. 9 Working from Kymlicka’s point here, the Conclusion of this book will employ the terms ‘core’ and ‘periphery’ to refer to European societies and those nation-states – such as Israel – that later developed out of their colonial and imperial historical matrix. Far from the propagation of a Eurocentric analytical framework, my use of the terms ‘core’ and ‘periphery’ are instead meant to source the historical origins of concepts of ‘citizenship’, ‘minority rights’ and the rise of the nation-state in Europe.