The life of the modern notion of the right to citizenship lies in the hands of the states that decide what their destiny is; through this aspect the state has special criteria for citizens to belong to a nation, and ones who do not belong to this community would not belong to the nation’s political community. The one who is an ‘outsider’ is a person deprived of many rights and privileges such as political rights, welfare, and legal status in which is not recognized as a member of a particular sovereign state1. In the territorial level the outsider if he/she wants to enter a state, it’s through many procedures. In Smith Roger’s, “Citizenship as Social Closure”, he introduces the differences between the insider and the outsider, he claims the political bond between members and non-members of the nation-state is that insiders can easily leave the state they inhabit in and could return any time, but for non-members there is a territorial closure which might limit their entry to the nation, ‘closure based on citizenship regulated by formally articulated norms and enforced by specialized agents employing formal identification law and corresponding administrative regulation’ (pg.30). The boundaries of a state are strict borders if an outsider wants to enter the region they must pass the borders which are consisted through administrative laws and regulations such as immigration law. These laws are enforced through border patrols that are specialized for outsiders to enter or to deny entry to that country. If the border police have provided entry it would be through a visa which gives a certain time period to stay in that country . In William Walters, Deportation, ‘Expulsion, and the International Police of Alien’s’, he considered the contemporary order of citizenship—as populace that is divided and distributed between territories and sovereigns, and in which rights depend mostly on national membership within territorial polities, then he sum ups that this process is impossible to reproduce itself naturally, it’s a matter of how states regulated the modern notion of citizenship. He continues the argument by saying we can see deportation like diplomacy, economic policy, and border controls, or schooling, as a practice that is constitutive and regulative of its subjects and objects. Then Walter gives a critique on how customary law can have an effect on international with the description offered; within the discourse of international law the practice of deportation can be derived from the sovereign right of states to control their territories and the discretion they have regarding the admittance, and residence of aliens’. He believes even if the citizenship has a status he still could be seen absent within the country they inhabitant in. The preceding analysis is the state has the right to expel at will the aliens-whose presence is regarded as undesirable, is, like the right to refuse admission of aliens, considered as an attribute of the sovereignty of the State. The grounds for expulsion of an alien may be determined by each State by its own criteria2 .
The inconsistency and irregularity of human rights have been dependent on states to decide if you are a human and if you are worthy to have human rights. The Middle East and Africa refugee crisis is currently facing restrictive policies in which the inconsistency is stated they seek refuge stop applying international human rights and other convention relating to the status of refugees. The Elders website has put an article about the refugee crisis and states; that Europe is currently facing a crisis of conscience. The author has meant that the European Union is debating on a discourse to dehumanize people arriving in Europe and leave their sake in danger. The European politicians have utilized the language of human rights and have argued that the more illegal entry the more threats our country well face3.
The importance of Walter in my research is to conduct how human rights have altered from an inalienable universal right to a notion of expulsion. In the mean, inalienable universal rights are possessed by a person since he or she is a human being these rights are not dependent on laws or customs and cannot be repealed and restrained. The next chapter I will offer an example through the Palestinian Israeli conflict on how Palestinian Bedouins that inhabit in occupied Palestinian territories are expelled from their basic rights and freedoms and Israeli settlers that inhabit in legal territories enjoy their rights and freedoms. The paradox I will raise in this issue is that the Palestinian Bedouins are considered unrecognized even when they inhabit in legal Palestinian territories, and Israeli legal settlers are considered recognized even when they inhabit in illegal settlements. The contradictory in this argument is that Palestinian Bedouins are expelled from their rights because they are lesser humans than Israeli settlers. Furthermore, I will show how Israeli NGOs tackle this issue by using the language of human rights to dehumanize Palestinian Bedouins and defend Israeli settlers through the language of human rights.
3.1 Human Rights Imperialism
What does it mean when the Israeli government announces that the Bedouin villages are unrecognizable? Unrecognized Bedouin village means that they are considered as illegal settlements, and as a result of their legal status, they are denied from basic rights and services provided by the country4. One recent incident happened in the village of Umm Al-Hiran in which people’s homes where demolished and two people were killed, why has the Israeli government in the first place began demolishing. According to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination that was ratified by general assembly resolution 2106 of 21 December 1965, the state parties to this convention are required to compel to protect minority rights and be treated equally and enjoy their human rights. Article 1 of the status proclaims the term racial discrimination shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life’5. According to the above mentioned, I wanted to highlight how human rights are used to dominate the convention stated the protection of minorities without any mean of distinction or exclusion from the public life. The core argument I want to raise is Israeli settlers that are occupying illegal lands have privilege and rights and Bedouins are unrecognized. Perguini in this article raises the two sides of the same coins example that Bedouins and Israeli settlers are the same coin but human rights is deployed in rhetoric why, in the sense that the protection of Israeli settlements is based on human rights infringement, and the displacement of Palestinians is based on concept of expulsion as an act of justice6. Furthermore, an Israeli NGO Regavim argues that the residents of the Bedouin community are invaders and a threat to the southern lands, this particular discourse crafts an image that the minorities of Bedouins are colonizers and the Israeli government should act. Nicola Perugini through his article The Human Rights of the Settler he highlights a press release of Netanyahu the prime minister of Israel giving a speech condemning the Palestinians demanding a state would be led to ethnic cleansing of Jewish settlers, ‘Netanyahu’s description of any potential evacuation of the West Bank colonies reflects the ethics of settler colonialism in which any attempt to dislocate the settlers is now equated with injustice’. Moreover, Netanyahu has denied that Palestinians have been dislocated and Palestinians were ethnically cleansed in 1948 and 1967. Vice versa Netanyahu has transformed the original cause that Palestinians can claim to an Israeli claim that Palestinians are against peace. Perugini also ascribed in this article that Abba Eban an Israeli diplomat suggested that the withdrawal from the territories in 1967 would correspond to genocide of the Jewish people. According to this logic, human rights have been turned into a tool to transform the oppressed to an oppressor.