What if Israel Annexes the West Bank and Lets Palestinians Vote

[westwall]

Jews and Arabs will be fighting until the end of time. There can be no compromise. One will have to take over the other.

They didn't fight that much prior to Israel being created - why wouldn't they stop again?

Actually, they did.

 

[Olde Europe]

The thing is - it doesn't HAVE to be. If Palestinians were full citizens, they would have at least some political say through the political process.

Israel isn't a fragile nation any more. It's identity is strongly established now, as is it's nature as a Jewish state, with a democratic form of government.

At SOME point, it's going to have to decide how to solve the Palestinian issue in a way that reflects the values it enshrines.

The status quo is unsustainable.

A two state solution is increasingly unlikely.

The thing is, according to Israel's basic law, second class citizenship it's going to be. That has nothing to do with whether or not Israel is "established", one way or another. It's a result of the prevailing lack of respect for non-Jews and international law.

A two-state solution is increasingly unlikely because of Israeli settlements on occupied territory, and the ramped up demolition of Palestinian homes and infrastructure to make more room for more Israeli settlements.

Don't you see that Netanyahu's electioneering plot, if implemented, will make Israel an international pariah? And what's Israel going to do if a half million Palestinians refuse both Israeli citizenship and to leave? Cattle cars? Dumping half a million into the Jordan river? Because Jordan certainly isn't going to pick them up. They have more than enough on their hands now already, without half a million uprooted, angry, devastated newcomers.

Whatever the values apparent in Israel's treatment of the Palestinians are supposed to be, the evidence is destruction, making lives as miserable as inhumanely possible, theft, and a slow-moving genocide in the planning - yes, replacing the indigenous population on occupied territory with the occupier's own population is one of the definitions of genocide. Some values...

 

[Mindful]

The thing is - it doesn't HAVE to be. If Palestinians were full citizens, they would have at least some political say through the political process.

Israel isn't a fragile nation any more. It's identity is strongly established now, as is it's nature as a Jewish state, with a democratic form of government.

At SOME point, it's going to have to decide how to solve the Palestinian issue in a way that reflects the values it enshrines.

The status quo is unsustainable.

A two state solution is increasingly unlikely.

The thing is, according to Israel's basic law, second class citizenship it's going to be. That has nothing to do with whether or not Israel is "established", one way or another. It's a result of the prevailing lack of respect for non-Jews and international law.

A two-state solution is increasingly unlikely because of Israeli settlements on occupied territory, and the ramped up demolition of Palestinian homes and infrastructure to make more room for more Israeli settlements.

Don't you see that Netanyahu's electioneering plot, if implemented, will make Israel an international pariah? And what's Israel going to do if a half million Palestinians refuse both Israeli citizenship and to leave? Cattle cars? Dumping half a million into the Jordan river? Because Jordan certainly isn't going to pick them up. They have more than enough on their hands now already, without half a million uprooted, angry, devastated newcomers.

Whatever the values apparent in Israel's treatment of the Palestinians are supposed to be, the evidence is destruction, making lives as miserable as inhumanely possible, theft, and a slow-moving genocide in the planning - yes, replacing the indigenous population on occupied territory with the occupier's own population is one of the definitions of genocide. Some values...

Still grinding your axe about Jews?

You've been doing it for years, repetition gets tedious.

For whatever reason, only known to yourself?

Genocide is an oxymoron, coming from you. Given the Palestinian Arab population has increased substantially since 1947. Maybe you can provide the demographics.

 

[Coyote]

Jews and Arabs will be fighting until the end of time. There can be no compromise. One will have to take over the other.

They didn't fight that much prior to Israel being created - why wouldn't they stop again?

Actually, they did.

Not as much, or I should say no more than others around them - there were long periods of relative peace, stability, prosperity.

 

[Coyote]

Why not?

A two state solution, as originally envisioned, is in a zombie state of perpetual propping up by diplomats. It's support has drastically waned among both Palestinians and Israelis.

With a one state solution (Israel + West Bank) - assuming a scenario where ALL residents are offered the opportunity of citizenship up front, the plus side for Palestinians would be the potential of better representation, political stability, assumption of rights guaranteed by citizenship and funding for infrastructure, education, etc. that is in perpetual shortage with their Palestinian leadership.


Here's what happens if Israel annexes the West Bank and lets Palestinians vote

I actually believe that the standard of living for Israeli Palestinians is good enough that MOST would choose to stay.. After all -- their identity is in those Pali City Centers...

That is what I'm thinking...so...I wonder....how can it be done in a way that might work?

I think - we can all agree the current status quo is unsustainable in the long term?

BUT --- the Ha'Aretz article makes some whopping bad assumptions.. They use the voting preferences of CITIZEN ARABS of Israel to predict the make-up of a new Knesset.. That's not what's gonna happen.. The AMBITIONS of Palestinians politically are far more divided than those of current Arab citizens and the ISSUE would be "radical fringe" candidates making it to the Knesset and disrupting the operation and the high LIKELIHOOD that certain Pali cities would choose less democratically oriented governorship than others..

I agree with being divided - but...I would ask this:

in terms of "fringe" - are they any more divided than Israeli Jews? For example you have pretty radical fringe groups there represented in the Knesset...are they that disruptive?

Also...isn't how it is governed based on laws - you can't exactly change it? Can you expand on your thoughts here?

There's already a HUGE disparity in freedom and tolerance between the City Centers.. You can have western women's ware shops in one and not another... The PLURALISTIC tolerant character of how Israel governs would be tested...

Yes it would....maybe semi-autonomy for some areas within an Israeli nation?

I'm all for MAXIMUM choice for folks.. And I think that's best when everyone understand that TOLERANCE is what makes "liberal choice" work... So --- I don't think FULL political assimilation would work at all...

BUT -- I think that "city grants" could be issued to consolidate 80 or 90% of the current Pali populattion in the occupied area.. This allows expansion of the 6 or 7 big city centers to include the Pali villages surrounding the existing city centers.. This is a simple REZONING process. THESE to be run by LOCAL control (as in City States or Emirates) within the West Bank where the remainder of the territory IS annexed as you proposed and governed jointly....

The city states COULD have fixed representation in the Knesset that is JOINTLY APPOINTED by the leaders of the city states... And a "Joint Development Board" established for the West Bank that allows security, tariff, taxes and OTHER issues to be handled...

What I put in blue - let's expand.

A lot of Palestinians are agrarian, farmers....how would they fit in to this model?

So - I"m simplifying it. Those city-states would be semi-autonomous within greater Israel. Citizens would elect their leaders who would then appoint their representatives to the Knesset? Each city state would have a representative with full rights in the Knesset?

Would this be somewhat comparable to our relationship to Native American tribes?

I know people hate it when I make comparisons but comparing the unfamiliar to something familiar is the easiest way to understand it.

Let me add one thing - because this WILL come up from opponents, and it can be a legitimate concern: people will compare this to apartheid and the creation of "bantustans" - substandard, and far from equal. How would you answer that and what would be in place to prevent that?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The thing is - it doesn't HAVE to be. If Palestinians were full citizens, they would have at least some political say through the political process.

Israel isn't a fragile nation any more. It's identity is strongly established now, as is it's nature as a Jewish state, with a democratic form of government.

At SOME point, it's going to have to decide how to solve the Palestinian issue in a way that reflects the values it enshrines.

The status quo is unsustainable.

A two state solution is increasingly unlikely.

The thing is, according to Israel's basic law, second class citizenship it's going to be. That has nothing to do with whether or not Israel is "established", one way or another. It's a result of the prevailing lack of respect for non-Jews and international law.

A two-state solution is increasingly unlikely because of Israeli settlements on occupied territory, and the ramped up demolition of Palestinian homes and infrastructure to make more room for more Israeli settlements.

Don't you see that Netanyahu's electioneering plot, if implemented, will make Israel an international pariah? And what's Israel going to do if a half million Palestinians refuse both Israeli citizenship and to leave? Cattle cars? Dumping half a million into the Jordan river? Because Jordan certainly isn't going to pick them up. They have more than enough on their hands now already, without half a million uprooted, angry, devastated newcomers.

Whatever the values apparent in Israel's treatment of the Palestinians are supposed to be, the evidence is destruction, making lives as miserable as inhumanely possible, theft, and a slow-moving genocide in the planning - yes, replacing the indigenous population on occupied territory with the occupier's own population is one of the definitions of genocide. Some values...

Still grinding your axe about Jews?

You've been doing it for years, repetition gets tedious.

For whatever reason, only known to yourself?

Genocide is an oxymoron, coming from you. Given the Palestinian Arab population has increased substantially since 1947. Maybe you can provide the demographics.

Where did he mention Jews?

 

[Coyote]

Would the Arabs on the West Bank like singing Hatikvah (the most beautiful national anthem in the world, both in terms of lyrics and melody)? Would they salute the Israeli flag, with its Star of David? Would they take pride in seeing a Menorah in front of the Knesset, Israel's Parliament? Would they accept the fact that only Hebrew is their national language, now that Arabic has been demoted from that position? Even Mohammed Zoabi, an Arab Israeli Zionist, opposed the Nation-State Law. The answer to all these questions is No. Therefore, even though it's tough for Jews to to give up Judea (their ancestral, historical and Biblical heartland) to those savage Arabs, I see no other way than 2 states.

Valid questions. I'm certain many would.

The hard question is what to do with those who don't. And especially those who use violence and incitement to violence to support their won't.

Give them the choice of full citizenship and full rights or moving.

THEIR choice, not the annexing government.

To be clear, you would support the expulsion of those who use violence and incitement to violence? Their choice.

Sure. As long as it applies to both.

Well, that IS interesting. I always thought you were against that. Certainly seemed to be when suggested by some on Team Israel.

The situation on the ground has changed.

I am morally against it. But if terrorist acts - and I mean ACTS are performed (as defined by life threatening acts against people because of their ethnic identity) then sure - expel THAT person - not the family, not the tribe, not anyone else. Or - put them through the criminal justice system. Actually that might be better.

But it has to be applied equally - that means Jews committing acts of violence against Palestinians should get the same treatment.

What I'm afraid of though is that this will be abused and used as a reason for mass expulsions much the way demoliting the family homes of Palestinians is abused as a group punishment.

How can such abuse be prevented?

 

[Coyote]

So why not just do it?

I think Israel will annex, eventually. Not yet.

• The political will in Israel isn't quite there yet. (Soon).
  
• Normalization with other Arab States is not solidified enough yet. (Making progress).
  
• Arab Palestinians not suffering enough from their own internal problems to rise up against THAT sort of oppression. (That sounds harsh, its not that I want them to suffer, just that they need to drive it from within.)
  
• Need to see who replaces Abbas.
• Iran

Interesting points Shusha...

 

[Coyote]

At SOME point, it's going to have to decide how to solve the Palestinian issue in a way that reflects the values it enshrines.

Israel is not responsible for solving the "Palestinian issue".

Yes. They are. Along with the Palestinians. Because it's not a "Palestinian issue". It's a Palestinian/Israeli issue.

Hmmmmmm. I disagree. (Where's the fun in agreeing, right?)

Israel absolutely can not solve any issue which is the responsibility of Palestine. There are two key things which Israel can not do:

1. Compel Arab Palestinian self-determination.
2. End Arab Palestinian Muslim extremism.

All Israel can do is protect its people best it can and wait those things out. Which leaves us with the status quo, right?

Disagree....because some of the problems are coming from Israel's own policies which are causing the demise of a two-state opportunity.

Israel can't affect the above, but it is provoking the situation through political policies and by that I mean settlements (we won't agree there so lets not get into it )

 

[Coyote]

At SOME point, it's going to have to decide how to solve the Palestinian issue in a way that reflects the values it enshrines.

Israel is not responsible for solving the "Palestinian issue".

Yes. They are. Along with the Palestinians. Because it's not a "Palestinian issue". It's a Palestinian/Israeli issue.

You can't expect ISRAEL to dictate a solution.. For the 109th time, there needs to be a responsible RECOGNIZED leadership that speaks for the Palestinians in occupation in the West Bank....

Probably will never happen..., So the next best thing is to LOCALIZE Pali leadership and governance the way it has ALWAYS BEEN before Europeans redrew the Mid East maps..

Then a coalition of those city leaders would be the de facto NEGOTIATORS for settlement. Works just fine. It's just not been properly proposed and analyzed quite yet... Maybe soon it will be...

Israel can't "dictate" a solution yet it's been working towards that for a long time. If it's a problem both parties have a hand in, then the solution will require both to be involved. That's my opinion anyway....and...it may work best along the lines you propose.

 

[Mindful]

The thing is - it doesn't HAVE to be. If Palestinians were full citizens, they would have at least some political say through the political process.

Israel isn't a fragile nation any more. It's identity is strongly established now, as is it's nature as a Jewish state, with a democratic form of government.

At SOME point, it's going to have to decide how to solve the Palestinian issue in a way that reflects the values it enshrines.

The status quo is unsustainable.

A two state solution is increasingly unlikely.

The thing is, according to Israel's basic law, second class citizenship it's going to be. That has nothing to do with whether or not Israel is "established", one way or another. It's a result of the prevailing lack of respect for non-Jews and international law.

A two-state solution is increasingly unlikely because of Israeli settlements on occupied territory, and the ramped up demolition of Palestinian homes and infrastructure to make more room for more Israeli settlements.

Don't you see that Netanyahu's electioneering plot, if implemented, will make Israel an international pariah? And what's Israel going to do if a half million Palestinians refuse both Israeli citizenship and to leave? Cattle cars? Dumping half a million into the Jordan river? Because Jordan certainly isn't going to pick them up. They have more than enough on their hands now already, without half a million uprooted, angry, devastated newcomers.

Whatever the values apparent in Israel's treatment of the Palestinians are supposed to be, the evidence is destruction, making lives as miserable as inhumanely possible, theft, and a slow-moving genocide in the planning - yes, replacing the indigenous population on occupied territory with the occupier's own population is one of the definitions of genocide. Some values...

Still grinding your axe about Jews?

You've been doing it for years, repetition gets tedious.

For whatever reason, only known to yourself?

Genocide is an oxymoron, coming from you. Given the Palestinian Arab population has increased substantially since 1947. Maybe you can provide the demographics.

Where did he mention Jews?

He doesn't need to.

 

[Coyote]

The thing is - it doesn't HAVE to be. If Palestinians were full citizens, they would have at least some political say through the political process.

Israel isn't a fragile nation any more. It's identity is strongly established now, as is it's nature as a Jewish state, with a democratic form of government.

At SOME point, it's going to have to decide how to solve the Palestinian issue in a way that reflects the values it enshrines.

The status quo is unsustainable.

A two state solution is increasingly unlikely.

The thing is, according to Israel's basic law, second class citizenship it's going to be. That has nothing to do with whether or not Israel is "established", one way or another. It's a result of the prevailing lack of respect for non-Jews and international law.

A two-state solution is increasingly unlikely because of Israeli settlements on occupied territory, and the ramped up demolition of Palestinian homes and infrastructure to make more room for more Israeli settlements.

Don't you see that Netanyahu's electioneering plot, if implemented, will make Israel an international pariah? And what's Israel going to do if a half million Palestinians refuse both Israeli citizenship and to leave? Cattle cars? Dumping half a million into the Jordan river? Because Jordan certainly isn't going to pick them up. They have more than enough on their hands now already, without half a million uprooted, angry, devastated newcomers.

Good point. But what would you propose instead?

Whatever the values apparent in Israel's treatment of the Palestinians are supposed to be, the evidence is destruction, making lives as miserable as inhumanely possible, theft, and a slow-moving genocide in the planning - yes, replacing the indigenous population on occupied territory with the occupier's own population is one of the definitions of genocide. Some values...

I wouldn't use genocide as a term here. For one....the Palestinians are still living there, with the same birth rates, and no mass expulsions are occurring. It's unequal and unjust but it's not genocide. Compare it to Myanmar.

 

[Coyote]

flacaltenn would love it if you would pitch in. Should Israel just annex? Could it be done in a workable way for all?

Be careful what you ask for... I don't want to crush your dreams and hopes....

I want some real discussion - something beyond the status quo.

 

[rylah]

They didn't fight that much prior to Israel being created

A lot of people claim this. So much so, its just accepted as one of those "everybody knows" things. I think we should question it. In particular, I think we should consider how an oppressed minority experiencing repeated pogroms every few years or few decades can be considered to be living in peaceful circumstances.

I think if you are going to challenge it you can not take it out of its historical context and judge it by today's standards of human rights.

Um. You DID see Sunni Man say on another thread just today that Jews remaining in Palestine will be restricted from certain professions, will be prevented from military service and will have to pay a dhimmi tax, didn't you? What makes you think the "historical context" is historical and not current context?

The historical context of "they didn't fight that much" is that the Jewish people were properly oppressed and generally didn't do outrageous things like, oh, I don't know....pray at their own holy places or fail to pay their special "protection" taxes.

No, I didn't. But, I will say this about Sunni Man - he is a hardcore chain yanker and troller at times, it's hard to know what he really thinks. What he is saying is not too much different than Rylah's idea of a "guest status" for non Jewish citizens of Israel. Would be interesting to get Sunni Man in a serious conversation some day and pin him down but don't see that happening.

Historical context matters. And it is not the same as modern context. For one - the entire idea of "human rights" is a relatively modern concept.

Why do you keep attaching to me this "guest status"?
Each time you bring this up I correct you, but you insist on repeating this.

Ger Toshav, though you try to distort it, is not a 'guest status', and it's not my idea,
rather a Halachic term for the non-Jewish citizens of Israel.

Torah prescribes for all non-Jews who want to live in the land to

• Recognize the G-d of Israel,
• Recognize the Torah of Moses
• Follow the 7 Laws of Noah
• Submit to Israel's sovereignty

1-3 are fulfilled, we're at stage 4.
We only need some reformation on stage 2, but it's all pretty much about stage 4.
This is what this whole conversation is about, and for the last 71 years.

You keep talking about guests, I'm repeating citizens with civil obligation.
So, at this stage, I raise the same question you have been evading for months now -

What should be the obligations upon receiving Israeli citizenship?

 

[Coyote]

They didn't fight that much prior to Israel being created

A lot of people claim this. So much so, its just accepted as one of those "everybody knows" things. I think we should question it. In particular, I think we should consider how an oppressed minority experiencing repeated pogroms every few years or few decades can be considered to be living in peaceful circumstances.

I think if you are going to challenge it you can not take it out of its historical context and judge it by today's standards of human rights.

Um. You DID see Sunni Man say on another thread just today that Jews remaining in Palestine will be restricted from certain professions, will be prevented from military service and will have to pay a dhimmi tax, didn't you? What makes you think the "historical context" is historical and not current context?

The historical context of "they didn't fight that much" is that the Jewish people were properly oppressed and generally didn't do outrageous things like, oh, I don't know....pray at their own holy places or fail to pay their special "protection" taxes.

No, I didn't. But, I will say this about Sunni Man - he is a hardcore chain yanker and troller at times, it's hard to know what he really thinks. What he is saying is not too much different than Rylah's idea of a "guest status" for non Jewish citizens of Israel. Would be interesting to get Sunni Man in a serious conversation some day and pin him down but don't see that happening.

Historical context matters. And it is not the same as modern context. For one - the entire idea of "human rights" is a relatively modern concept.

Why do you keep attaching to me this "guest status"?
Each time you bring this up I correct you, but you insist on repeating this.

Ger Toshav, though you try to distort it, is not a 'guest status', and it's not my idea,
rather a Halachic term for the non-Jewish citizens of Israel.

Torah prescribes for all non-Jews who want to live in the land to

• Recognize the G-d of Israel,
• Recognize the Torah of Moses
• Follow the 7 Laws of Noah
• Submit to Israel's sovereignty

1-3 are fulfilled, we're at stage 4.
We only need some reformation on stage 2, but it's all pretty much about stage 4.
This is what this whole conversation is about, and for the last 71 years.

You keep talking about guests, I'm repeating citizens with civil obligation.
So, at this stage, I raise the same question you have been evading for months now -

What should be the obligations upon receiving Israeli citizenship?

Why should non Jews be required to recognized the God of Israel? Or the Torah? Or religious law?

 

[Coyote]

rylah

You ask: “what should the obligations of Israeli citizenship be” and that is a good question.

I would say it includes following the laws of the state, participating in civil society and the political process, participating in defense. Not engaging in treason or sedition.

 

[rylah]

A lot of people claim this. So much so, its just accepted as one of those "everybody knows" things. I think we should question it. In particular, I think we should consider how an oppressed minority experiencing repeated pogroms every few years or few decades can be considered to be living in peaceful circumstances.

I think if you are going to challenge it you can not take it out of its historical context and judge it by today's standards of human rights.

Um. You DID see Sunni Man say on another thread just today that Jews remaining in Palestine will be restricted from certain professions, will be prevented from military service and will have to pay a dhimmi tax, didn't you? What makes you think the "historical context" is historical and not current context?

The historical context of "they didn't fight that much" is that the Jewish people were properly oppressed and generally didn't do outrageous things like, oh, I don't know....pray at their own holy places or fail to pay their special "protection" taxes.

No, I didn't. But, I will say this about Sunni Man - he is a hardcore chain yanker and troller at times, it's hard to know what he really thinks. What he is saying is not too much different than Rylah's idea of a "guest status" for non Jewish citizens of Israel. Would be interesting to get Sunni Man in a serious conversation some day and pin him down but don't see that happening.

Historical context matters. And it is not the same as modern context. For one - the entire idea of "human rights" is a relatively modern concept.

Why do you keep attaching to me this "guest status"?
Each time you bring this up I correct you, but you insist on repeating this.

Ger Toshav, though you try to distort it, is not a 'guest status', and it's not my idea,
rather a Halachic term for the non-Jewish citizens of Israel.

Torah prescribes for all non-Jews who want to live in the land to

• Recognize the G-d of Israel,
• Recognize the Torah of Moses
• Follow the 7 Laws of Noah
• Submit to Israel's sovereignty

1-3 are fulfilled, we're at stage 4.
We only need some reformation on stage 2, but it's all pretty much about stage 4.
This is what this whole conversation is about, and for the last 71 years.

You keep talking about guests, I'm repeating citizens with civil obligation.
So, at this stage, I raise the same question you have been evading for months now -

What should be the obligations upon receiving Israeli citizenship?

Why should non Jews be required to recognized the God of Israel? Or the Torah? Or religious law?

Because that's the prescription for enjoying the full blessing of this land.

All non-Jewish citizens, even those who might identify as atheists are in the category of Ger Toshav,
this is how the Rabbinate was set by Maran Avraham Yitzhak Cohen Ztz"l.

 

[Coyote]

rylah

Is this a reasonable definition of the term? If so how exactly would it relate to Israel today and the citizenship of non-Jews in Israel now and if Israel annexes territory?

Ger toshav - Wikipedia

 

[Coyote]

I think if you are going to challenge it you can not take it out of its historical context and judge it by today's standards of human rights.

Um. You DID see Sunni Man say on another thread just today that Jews remaining in Palestine will be restricted from certain professions, will be prevented from military service and will have to pay a dhimmi tax, didn't you? What makes you think the "historical context" is historical and not current context?

The historical context of "they didn't fight that much" is that the Jewish people were properly oppressed and generally didn't do outrageous things like, oh, I don't know....pray at their own holy places or fail to pay their special "protection" taxes.

No, I didn't. But, I will say this about Sunni Man - he is a hardcore chain yanker and troller at times, it's hard to know what he really thinks. What he is saying is not too much different than Rylah's idea of a "guest status" for non Jewish citizens of Israel. Would be interesting to get Sunni Man in a serious conversation some day and pin him down but don't see that happening.

Historical context matters. And it is not the same as modern context. For one - the entire idea of "human rights" is a relatively modern concept.

Why do you keep attaching to me this "guest status"?
Each time you bring this up I correct you, but you insist on repeating this.

Ger Toshav, though you try to distort it, is not a 'guest status', and it's not my idea,
rather a Halachic term for the non-Jewish citizens of Israel.

Torah prescribes for all non-Jews who want to live in the land to

• Recognize the G-d of Israel,
• Recognize the Torah of Moses
• Follow the 7 Laws of Noah
• Submit to Israel's sovereignty

1-3 are fulfilled, we're at stage 4.
We only need some reformation on stage 2, but it's all pretty much about stage 4.
This is what this whole conversation is about, and for the last 71 years.

You keep talking about guests, I'm repeating citizens with civil obligation.
So, at this stage, I raise the same question you have been evading for months now -

What should be the obligations upon receiving Israeli citizenship?

Why should non Jews be required to recognized the God of Israel? Or the Torah? Or religious law?

Because that's the prescription for enjoying the full blessing of this land.

All non-Jewish citizens, even those who might identify as atheists are in the category of Ger Toshav,
this is how the Rabbinate was set by Maran Avraham Yitzhak Cohen Ztz"l.

How does that effect citizenship and rights?

 

[rylah]

rylah

You ask: “what should the obligations of Israeli citizenship be” and that is a good question.

I would say it includes following the laws of the state, participating in civil society and the political process, participating in defense. Not engaging in treason or sedition.

So how this declaration should be documented?