Those familiar with the alt-right will recognize one of its favorite talking points: Israel supporters—particularly Jews—are hypocritical if they support immigration into the U.S., since they don’t advocate large-scale non-Jewish immigration into Israel or the Palestinian right of return. (It is invoked, for example, in an unabashedly anti-Semitic primer on “How to Argue with Neocons” on an alt-right blog.) Regardless of what one thinks of immigration to the United States, or of Israeli policies, this is a remarkably bad analogy.



Israel was founded as an ethno-state (though it is worth noting that a quarter of its citizens are not Jewish); the United States of America was not. Israel is surrounded by hostile neighbors; the United States is not. A Palestinian right of return would mean forcing a nation of eight million to accept as many as four to five million immigrants many of whom are hostile to its statehood; proportionately, that would be analogous to an influx of 150 million into the U.S. If such a proposal were on the table, Coulter and Trump certainly wouldn’t be the only ones to oppose it.



The “double standards” argument has blatantly anti-Semitic overtones, since it invariably invokes Israel and never other small nations, like Finland, that limit immigration and grant automatic citizenship on the basis of ethnic background.

American Jews are absolutely hypocritical if they support large-scale immigration into the USA while opposing it for Israel. They are also observably anti-American.

hypocritical if they support large-scale immigration into the USA while opposing it for Israel. They are also observably anti-American. It is not a "a remarkably bad analogy". It is a very fair and pertinent comparison.

Israel was not founded as an ethno-state. It is an ethno-religious state. An ethnic Jew who is a Christian is not permitted the right of return. Moreover, since Israel already grants citizenship to Palestinians, the nature of its founding in this regard is not relevant.

The USA absolutely was founded as an ethno-state. "The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were free white persons of good character. It thus excluded American Indians, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and Asians."

The state of relations with Israel's neighbors are irrelevant. China is not at war with Israel and Israel does not permit unlimited immigration from China, or from the United States, for that matter.

Since Jews like Cathy Young believe that large-scale immigration is a beneficial thing, why wouldn't four million immigrants benefit Israel?

The US population was 194 million in 1965. The 61 million immigrants who have entered the country since would be identical to permitting 2.5 million Palestinians to return to Israel. Is Cathy Young willing to permit just 2.5 million Palestinians to return? If that many, proportionately, would be bad for Israel, how can she argue the same percentage is good for the USA?

The reason the double-standards argument invariably invokes Israel and never small nations like Finland is because no Finns are publicly arguing for large-scale immigration to the United States or calling everyone who disagrees with them anti-Finnites.

It's downright remarkable that Cathy Young appears to think her defense of a double-standard in her attack on Ann Coulter will convince anyone of anything but her being a dishonest and perfidious anti-American propagandist.A few relevant points:Cathy Young's argument fails historically, mathematically, and logically. Ann Coulter is right. Israel has the right to exist and defend its borders. So does the United States of America. Cathy Young, being an openly anti-American extremist opposed to the American national interest, should be rejected by every American, and especially by every conservative.As for the Alt Right, well, we already knew she was dreadful.