Yeah, terrible idea by MLP. Additional citizenship is not a problem.
Its not a matter of identity, but loyalty. You can only be fully loyal to one state. Of course this is less of a problem if the two countries where you are a citizen are on friendly terms, but its still not ideal for a country to have citizens who also owe loyalty to a foreign country.
This is an absurd idea. Apart from the fact that there is no contradiction between being French and being Israeli, loyalty (whatever that even means) is in your heart, it's not based on one's passport. Dutch Turks wouldn't stop being Erdobots if they lost their Turkish passports, and I, who doesn't hold Israeli citizenship, am as Zionist as it gets. The expectation that a passport implies owing loyalty to a country is just naive. It doesn't work like that. Besides, how do you even define loyalty?
Loyalty to your homeland is hardly an absurd idea. Generally its in the interest of the state to limit the number of people with dual loyalties, and forcing them to choose between citizenships is one way to accomplish this. In the case of Turks (and Arabs, Pakistanis etc.) in Europe the proper solution in most cases would be to strip them of their European citizenship as their loyalty clearly is with the home country of their ancestors. This would make it easier to expel them if they cause trouble.
I understand your personal dilemma, but generally I think its undesirable having too many "multi-identity" citizens an forcing them to choose between citizenships is one way of reducing this problem.
The Afrikaners used to refer to British South Africans as "salt dicks", people with one leg in the UK and one in SA (and therefore having to spread so wide their junk got salty), and such types are best avoided or kept to a minimum.