"when a "home for the jews" is founded on the basis of ethno-nationalism to the exclusion, and at the expense of, those who already live their. It is indeed racist."

Completely agreed. If this were not the case, why would there be so much completely unquestioned worry in the media about the birth rates of arab israelis vs those of jewish israelis? How is the constant concern over Israel getting "swallowed up" by what is presented as scores of quickly-reproducing arabs any different from the racist concerns over white america being "threatened" by the influx and birth rate of latinos? I can't even imagine what would happen if CNN ran frequent stories about the high birth rate of black americans compared to that of white americans and what the best means of response would be to this situation that could potentially "compromise the white character of America." I see no difference between the two statements except that America is explicitly a multiracial nation with no "official" ethnicity.

I am an American Jew and for a long time now it has seemed to me that a state founded as a homeland for one people and yet heralded as a democracy is a contradiction in terms and as many nations, including the US and South Africa, have discovered, it is impossible to maintain a veneer of democracy while the country remains explicitly "for" someone and explicitly "not for" someone else who also happens to live there. This is what I expected to find in this article and unfortunately the problematic assumptions behind the idea of a "Jewish State" are ignored in favor of discussing more practical problems. I look forward to the day when Slate will publish an article examining how a nation can survive while continuing to tenaciously hold on to an ethnic national character.

by the way, for anyone who believes that arab israelis are experiencing the same type of citizenship as jewish israelis, please read a recent article in the times: <link>