The historic context for UN generally assembly for approving the creation of the state were the countless injustices suffered by us for over two millenia, which ("only") culminated in the holocaust. Whether a valid formula in general or not, fact is that it WAS the rationale at that time. If we assume that Israel originally drew its legitimacy from that reasoning than it would be virtually a no-brainer that the jewish identity (read: majority) not only should, but infact MUST be protected and instiutionalised into the very foundations of the society. I cannot see how this could be achieved with some long-term security in the matter other than by granting jews certain privileges which are unaccessible to others. True, this does amount to - a limited form of - discrimination, and it is certainly incompatible with contemporary concepts on equality. But then I view it an acceptable price if we consider that no other people has suffered from genocide on a similar scale (and still exists to speak of it). After all, the state of Israel is a safe have and thus a safeguard for a much wider range of Human Rights of an entire people. Unique situations require unique answers, fairly little point in relying on political dogma in the case of Israel. And BTW, having atheists in charge of shaping Israeli society whilst referring to this as "progress" gives me the creeps, personally.
U.S. Supreme Court denies Kentucky clerk request on gay marriage licenses (Reuters)
from the article: You can't be a Jewish Muslim