Really? The first wording of the bill was clearly terrible and received condemnation from many parts, including yourself.All they’ve done is changed the wording slightly.Do you really think the policy itself has changed too and people are now just ‘interpreting’ it to mean the same?
Well, considering it is basic law the words are the most important part.
Feel free to say I told you so in a few years, for now I’d rather stick to the facts.
You can't see into the future, but the past may give an indication..
Briefing Security Council on Resolution 2334 (2016), Special Coordinator Urges Reversing Negative Trends in Palestinian-Israeli Conflict | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases
There is still no sign of reversing the illegal settlements as far as I can see.
agreed the past is clear.
"Settlement" in this context relates to the Israel being, essentially, the Jewish homeland and being a place where Jews can go to live.This isn't really a new thing.
"Settlements" means something completely different.
That is how saw it as well considering the type of bill it is.
Only a week ago :
Israel responds to fatal knife attack with new settler homes
Can't see much changing tbh
Ok, I’ll leave it there.I just honestly thought your previous condemnation was refreshing honesty, but it appears to be just down to a change of words being enough, rather than actions.I’m sure the wording will be very comforting to those people evicted from their own homes to make way for “settlements”.
I'm going to have to leave this thread as I think my beliefs will be considered archaic as I believe a race shouldn't be determined by a religious belief, if religion could be proven however.
Good point.
Beliefs, customs and traditions are parts of an ethnic makeup.
However, race and religion is a difficult one to correlate. Not sure they can be, even in law.