I agree with Mr Singer. Zionist Israel is in deep trouble.
To become legitimate it will have to wade through all the written agreements since 1922 to mount a legal case to allow the rest of the world to let it live in peace.

I am curious as to why Israel would insist on being recognised as a 'Jewish' state. Why would it not be possible to be simply 'Israel'? The constitution could mandate it as a standard secular state governed by the rule of law and in dependant judiciary, in much the same way as Australia is a secular state with a 'Christian' foundation. Israeli public holidays, and all other aspects of daily life, (defence, immigration, education etc) by law and regulation would reflect a Jewish heritage and view of the world.

Would this not get this 'impediment' off the table and make Abbas' objection a non-event.?

Rais the dust. Israel is currently 'legitimate', having full membership and recognition by the UN as an in dependant state, a constitution endorsed by those that are ruled by it and a rule of law.

I agree that no amount of wading through agreements and mounting of legal cases will allow the rest of the world to let it live in peace, so long as a Palistinian leader (were one to be elected in the future), simply reject all UN charter that is deems unsuitable, reject/change previous state agreements, rejects its own constitution and charter without the mandate of its population and is ruled by the meanest thug on the block, Kerry and the UN are simply 'whistling Dixie' with a rogue state.

Not that I really blame the Palistinians from the UN is of any use at all anyway, I mean really, have you looked at the

Correction:

Not that I blame the Palestinians from rejecting UN dictates anyway, I mean, have you seen the makeup of the 'human rights' committee recently? An embarrassing joke really. But to not adhere to It's own charter de legitimises Palestinian aspirations as a recognisable state with which one can reach agreement.

When it is acceptable to throw political opponents from the roof of buildings as a part of the electoral system, one has to question quite a lot about the claim of 'statehood'.

OK I don't know why states have national religions but many do.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_state_religions.svg

Mostly it's Muslim states but there're a fair number of Christian ones as well.

Officially India is secular but it seems to be moving in the direction of a sort of "Hindu Nationalism"

There are even two Buddhist states, Bhutan and Cambodia.

Pakistan is a bit confusing. It is a "Muslim" state but its Parliament has passed a law declaring the Ahmadiyya Sect to be "un-Islamic". It's one and only science Nobel laureate, Abdus Salaam, is Ahmadiyya and spent the last years of his life in exile in Europe.

stevenmeyer,

"OK I don't know why states have national religions but many do."

So? That list is hardly a justification for Israel to be constituted as a "Jewish State", rather the opposite in fact.

What exactly is a "Jewish State", what are the human rights implications for Israel's resident goyim? Would they have a second-rate political or economic status, or, indeed, are they currently subject to economic or political restrictions? If the answer is "No", whether or not Israel is a "Jewish State" is, of course, immaterial. If the answer is "yes", why would Palestinians acquiesce to a formal recognition of their subjugation?

Dear Mac,

In answer to your questions:

1. A "Jewish State" is a state intended as a home for the Jewish nation.
2. Israel's intention is for resident "goyim" (who are not Jewish nationals), is that they have every personal/individual right as Jews, but no rights as a group.

Palestinians would be wise to acquiesce to a formal recognition of their subjugation, then strike back at a later date when they can and demand more. The reason they don't do so, is their correct assessment that if peace is achieved, life will become too comfortable for ordinary Palestinians, who would no longer care for anything beyond themselves and their families.