Different people have been at slightly cross topics. I think Banquo was lumping all Israeli citizenship policy together as an inextricably tied together racist knot; lumping stuff like citizenship disadvantages for Arabs together with citizenship freebies for the Jewish diaspora buttresses the argument that the policy of a Jewish majority (or any policy seeking to maintain a Jewish majority?) constitutes racism. I've been mostly talking about the law of return specifically, whereas Lum and Alexb were talking part of the time about Birthright Israel, a more recent program of free trips to Israel. Without any subtle snark intended in the question, I assume you've read up on Zionism and Arab-Israeli history since Herzl? Reading it personally I certainly wish had turned out better but there was rarely an occasion where I might legitimately think (forehead slap) "ah you boneheads, why did you implement Zionism this way?" The blindness towards the number and significance of Arab Palestinians is striking looking at the mindset of Herzl and then the actual leaders of the Yishuv during the waves of settlement. But in light of contemporary "norms" for that sort of obliviousness, and the exagerated Zionist expectations that millions and millions of Jewish settlers would arrive are an important context for that. (And that's without getting into the contribution made to the Arab-Israeli conflict by other parties, which on the one hand sounds like "but others were racist/violent/to-blame", but on the other hand is essential to understanding the historical narrative.) Used where, and by whom? A lot of liberals, myself included, are awkward with the idea of any sort of tribalistic nationalism, or maintaining certain nations in certain majority statuses in nation-states. Plus for a lot of people it's more of an historical term? I don't really feel like it's a word to conjure with these days.