As I’ve expressed earlier. The text has changed considerably. The whole “apartheid” clause has been reworded and it is no longer what it was.
If you have the official text of the bill then please do share. From what I can see, and I did say that if that is accurate and correct, then the segregation that was discussed in the OP did not make it in the approved version.
Link shared in this thread on the 20th July says exactly the same, about the exact two items I’ve posted above so I’m not sure what you’re talking about?
ADL raises alarm over Israeli democracy after nation-state bill
By all means change your mind, that’s everyone’s right, but to now defend the indefensible is quite a turnaround.
Cool if they did, I simply reacted to the OP which was talking about segregation and apartheid. So if you are now saying you always knew that wasn’t part of it then why was it there?
For the rest the only potentially controversial element could be what isn’t in the bill, ie protection for minorities etc that most other countries have. But not even that was being argued.
I can see this is heading to complete denial and bickering so I’ll leave it.
Hey I questioned whether it was correct what I posted. You go into some rant that you already said the same text. I’m sorry but that same text simply isn’t in the OP. If you want to see that as denial I find that very strange.
I’m trying to have an adult discussion here, and be critical where it should be. But I simply do not see where how the OP matches with what was actually implemented.
Everyone has an agenda posting in PE and a side to some extent .
We see all calling out Coybyn on anti everything TBH on the antisemitism thread . Even if they / he goes bang on the terms of antisemitism it will not be enough to fill them.
When it comes to Isreal it seems is a lil different as Anti anything but Jewish is ok for this nation state .
Do you agree though as the OP that the segregation elements that were originally proposed and in the OP did not actually make it in the bill that was agreed and approved?
That is the only point in making. No agenda whatsoever.
My point was that you’re suggesting the text in the link you shared is somehow new and completely non-discriminatory yet it’s the exact same text that was shared at the end of July, after which you described the bill as indefensible.You’re now reading the same text and stating that there’s nothing wrong and accusing me of moving the goalposts?
Whilst the original text was even more blatantly racist, the passed version is simply watered down text with the same policy.
Did you actually read the article he posted?