Uzi Arad writes in Haaretz:

Prof. Gideon Biger of Tel Aviv University, in this newspaper, raised his plan for two states, one entirely Jewish, the other entirely Arab, based on territorial transfers in which the Triangle, from Kfar Qassam in the south to Barta in the north, would be handed over to Palestinian sovereignty, while in exchange, Israel would retain those territories populated by Jews in Judea and Samaria, including the Jordan Valley. Later, Prof. Arnon Sofer of the University of Haifa and Prof. Sergio della Pergola of the Hebrew University made similar proposals.

[…] The idea of territorial transfers already appeared in plans that dealt with the final status agreement from the Clinton framework to the plans proposed by Israeli groups such as the [Ayalon-Nusseibeh] People’s Voice petition. According to all those plans the route of the geodemographic border was drawn according to the principle of territorial contiguity.

The idea of exchanging populated territories was also raised by people from throughout the political spectrum, from Avigdor Lieberman on the right to Ephraim Sneh on the left, and has won the support of some intellectuals. On the other hand, the response of Israeli Arabs has generally been reserved, together with their reservations about the very idea of protecting the Jewish character of the state of Israel.

“Territorial transfer” is a nice way of saying that citizens of the state of Israel will be stripped from their civic rights and become citizens of a newly formed state of Palestine. Arad presents a ‘wide consensus’ on the matter, exposing the anti-democratic attitude held by prominent academics, politicians and ‘peace groups’ from right and left. The ‘reservations’ of potential victims from this idea is mentioned briefly. But for Arad, who’s belief in the basic tenets of democracy is questionable, it probably doesn’t matter what the Israeli Arabs want. The discourse is among the Jewish politicians, Intellectuals, and yes – even ‘peaceniks’.

Any person who believes that a state has a right to strip people from their citizenship without any reason but their ethnicity or nationality, is an anti-democrat. The difference between territorial transfer and population transfer is that the trucks aren’t needed.

The fact that Israeli citizneship would be replaced by another citizenship is irrelevant; no state has a right to decide that some part of the population it governs will be stripped from their rights even if another state will give citizenship to that same population. Since a democratic state as represented in its various institutions comes to being as a supposed manifestation of the people’s will (a claim that I am willing to accept for the sake of the argument) and its democratic legitimacy originates from the citizens, it can never disenfranchise any part of its population, and still call itself a democracy.