Okay, that I get.
I don't think it's necessarily talking about citizens' actual rights though. It's more talking about how it's changed citizens' outlook about the concept of democracy. I think it's a valid point.
Then there's another debate about whether ethnocentric, anti-democratic ideals where always there, it's just that the West and some Israelis were able to more easily ignore them in the past.
This is all illustrated by the nation-state law, which I think the article is very reasonable about. It admits that it doesn't actually change people's rights in any concrete way. It's symbolic though.
The nation state law is a good example of the silliness of the article. The article itself admits that it won't make a great difference, and the only objection is with the symbolism of declaring Israel a Jewish state, as if this is somehow new rather than the very reason the country was founded in the first place.
This is being done in the context of an article trying to show how things are getting worse in the way it starts by approvingly referring to Ben Gurion and leading to the supposedly worse present. But it was under Ben Gurion's leadership, and before the occupation, that the Arabs were under military rule and clearly had far less rights than they do now. It would be far more accurate for the article to go the opposite way and write about how much progress Arabs have made since Israel's early days to the present.
