> How does this square with the Nation-State Law, which states that the former group has precisely zero rights to "self-determination"?

I highly dislike the Nation-State law. That said, its effect in practice is almost nothing, it is mostly symbolic. I disagree with the symbolism, but it doesn't negate what I said. This is confirmed by the Israeli Supreme Court:

> The court's majority opinion concurred with arguments that the law merely declares the obvious—that Israel is a Jewish state—and that this does not detract from the individual rights of non-Jewish citizens, especially in light of other laws that ensure equal rights to all.

Question - is your criticism of what I said only because of that law? It was passed in 2019. Did you have no criticism before that?

> And while you're at it, can you tell as about the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law and how that affects the right to apply for citizenship rights for one's spouse, in practice?

Israel defines its citizens in whatever way it wants, just like any other country. It has immigration laws, just like any other country. Trying to analyze this as something unique is just wrong.

Just like I can't just go to France and instantly become a citizen, unless I have some kind of French ancestry, as defined by France itself, in the same way someone can't just become a citizen of Israel without having what Israel considers Israeli ancestry. Since it was started specifically as the homeland of the Jews, as a place for Jews who had nowhere else to go cause everyone else was too busy killing them, that's what it uses for ancestry.

People try to make this seem weird, but this is pretty consistent with how most democracies work.