I wrote in small part:
* An accusation of racism on behalf of the Israeli
government
has been Orwellianly interpreted as racism on behalf of the accuser.
(In a more complicated context, that can be a wise deduction,
such as when people excuse all lex solis regimes except Israel.
But many people are just ignorant about that situation.)
Whoops! the Latin is backwards; should be "lex sanguinis".
In a lex solis (jus solis, law of the soil) regime,
citizenship is determined by the location of birth;
in a lex sanguinis (jus sanguinis, law of the blood) regime,
citizenship is determined by the status of the parents.
Lex sanguinis is arguably racist when the parents' race matters,
irrespective of the parents' citizenship status.
(It's arguably racist in any case, but that'a a harder argument.)
This is the case with quite a few regimes, the State of Israel among them.
That Jews of any birth nationality (and any degree of religious practice)
are permitted to become citizens of Israel upon their arrival,
is a common argument for the «Zionism = racism» equation.
But many people that make that argument ignore the similar situation
in (for just one example) Germany (IIRC). In certain cases,
such a biased attitude may be traceable to their own racism.
And of course, things are never as simple as this bipolar division.
Israel, Germany, etc, also have lex solis provisions.
-- Toby