Let's just think a second about it and answer the questions I posited.
Israel was founded as a state for a specific ethnicity, the Jews.
It has never officially annexed Gaza and West Bank specifically because doing so would increase the Palestinian population of Israel. This is also why Israelis, even Liberal ones, find the idea of a one state solution abhorrent, because they'll be a minority.
The "Nation State Bill" declares Israel to be a nation for the Jewish people. Imagine if a country with a significant minority like the US or Australia declared that the nation was meant for White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. Would this be racist?
Palestinians can not get Israeli citizenship even if they can provide proof of having lived in Israel in living memory. People point out countries like Polands "citizenship by decent" law but Poland doesn't only do so for ethnic Poles. A descendant of Jewish or German Polish citizens has the same rights as a descendant of Polish citizens.
On the other hand, Jews with 0 known ancestry in Israel (including converts who have very little ties to the "imagined Jewish people") have the right to move to Israel.
"Arab Israelis" can not pass their citizenship onto their spouse or children if their spouse is from Gaza/West Bank. This has led to Palestinians born in Israel to an Israeli parent and with an Israeli spouse and children being deported. If they were Jewish that would not occur. These are legal discriminations based solely on whether you are Jewish or not.
A Palestinian born in West Bank does not have the right to Israeli citizenship. A Jewish settler in West Bank does have those rights. They live in the same territory, under the same government but the sole difference in their rights is their ethnicity.
This is not even really discussing the occupation of West Bank and the de facto occupation of Gaza but these facts are already far more radical than any other supremacist state on earth. Not Sri Lanka (which gave Indian Tamils citizenship in 2004), not Myanmar, not India, Malaysia or Bhutan. Definitionally, not the pseudo-ethnostates of Botswana, Lesotho and Eswatini.
In fact, they're far more radical than groups like the AfD, Reform or National Rally, none of which have suggested limiting citizenship to one specific ethnicity.
areudirty
tangentwithtanner
gracieabrams
gummygunk
vaporwave
s-u-f-j-a-n-s-t-e-v-e-n-s
prguitarman
