Thread by @Aizenberg55

THREAD: Recent letter by academics agreeing Israel is apartheid is going around. It's still a lie no matter who signs. Read below for detail on how legal definition of apartheid is fabricated by NGOs & how by int’l law Israel can't be apartheid. Long thread but read for truth 1/

Apartheid is defined by int'l law as purely RACIAL; not based on political, national, ethnic, cultural, religious or gender identity differences. Palestinians are not a race. Jews are not a race. Thus by legal definition of apartheid Israel-Pal conflict can't be apartheid. 2/

NGOs such as HRW & Amnesty discard clear definition of apartheid as specifically & only RACIAL claiming it includes things like national identity. Here is the text from the HRW report claiming that "separate identity groups" fall under "racial groups" but these NGOs are lying 3/

Apartheid is defined in international law in two places as HRW & Amnesty acknowledge: 1998 Rome Statute & 1973 UN Apartheid Convention. Rome Statute defines "Crime of Apartheid" as oppression & domination by one "racial group" over another. Here is the actual language: 4/

NGOs claim Rome Statute did not define "Racial Group" and claim Rome really meant to include "differences of ethnicity, descent, and national original" - a much broader concept of race. Here is text where HRW claims how Rome should be read (Amnesty says the same thing): 5/

But HRW & Amnesty deliberately & dishonestly misrepresent as Rome did in fact make crystal clear that "racial" is totally separate from other things! Article 7.1(h) SEPARATES "racial" from "political, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender." See below my red underline: 6/

Paragraph 1(j) from above lists a Crime Against Humanity as Crime of Apartheid. Next section then defines apartheid (see thread #4) referring back to paragraph 1. It's exclusively racial. If Rome meant to include ethnic or national identity in apartheid it would have said so! 7/

HRW & Amnesty omit Article 7.1(h) in their analysis because it shows Rome did NOT broaden definition of "racial" to include other things. Rome plainly lists these other things separate from racial! In fact Rome is quite specific defining Apartheid as ONLY & literally racial. 8/

As part of fabrication NGOs use definition of "racial discrimination" from 1965 UN ICERD document which includes "descent or national or ethnic origin." NGOs then falsely apply this definition unrelated to Rome to override what 1998 Rome says! Here is what HRW & Amnesty say: 9/

All NGOs charging Israel with Apartheid, such as Yesh Din in 2020 report (see from p 20 here) perform same falsification of law taking 1965 ICERD definition of racial & inserting it into 1998 Rome even though Rome clearly says racial IS NOT national, ethnic, political etc. 10/

1973 Apartheid Convention also defines apartheid as purely "racial" evoking policies of South Africa (see below). Here "racial" is not defined & not separated from other things like in Rome, but connection to SA is a problem for the NGOs as it's clear Israel is not like SA. 11/

NGOs solve this problem by claiming "international community" has "detached the term apartheid from its original South African context" - but this is not codified in int'l law! Despite 857 footnotes HRW does not evidence this "detachment"- it's the we say so evidence! 12/

HRW makes clear they don't argue Israel is like SA (they know it won't work). Here HRW report author Omar Shakir says they don't compare to SA (at 9:26). NGOs claim to rely on codified int'l law, but no law says apartheid is no longer the SA model 13/

Let's go back now to 1965 ICERD definition of "racial" that NGOs copy/paste into the definitions of apartheid to override Rome's separation of racial from all other differences in people. ICERD says something else which NGOs ignore as it exonerates Israel from apartheid. 14/

Clause 2 of ICERD says distinctions between citizens & non-citizens is excluded from discrimination! (see below) Meaning Israeli actions (whatever alleged, true or not) against non-citizen Palestinians CANNOT be legally "racial discrimination" and thus NOT apartheid. 15/

NGOs claim that Palestinians in WB/Gaza who are not citizens are legally subject to apartheid. But using ICERD law that NGOs conveniently cherry pick for only Clause 1 (falsely as shown above), Clause 2 contradicts their entire thesis. Either all of ICERD is law or it's not. 16/

There are many crimes against humanity listed in Rome & international law but to claim apartheid it MUST BE purely racial. Not national identity, culture, ethnicity, politics. NGOs know Israel-Pal is not racial but they desperately want to use the powerful "apartheid" word. 17/

If you believe Israel commits crimes against humanity (I don't) you'd have to say according to Rome: "Israel commits crimes against humanity of persecution on ethnic & national differences" (per Rome clause 7.1h) but this does not carry rhetorical weaponization of apartheid! 18/

NGOs collaborate to lie about legal definition of apartheid, UN officials spread, academics & media buy into it, then NGOs claim "consensus," so many people say so (even Jews!) how can you disagree? But int'l law is not a popularity contest. Sadly, distortion is working. 19/

It’s easily proven that NGOs fabricate legal definition of apartheid by redefining "racial" to falsely tie in Israel-Palestine conflict (among many fabrications). Shame on academics & others who lazily & blindly buy into fabrication of international law to demonize Israel. 20/

Predicted reply: OK so it's not technically law to say Israel is apartheid but so what since Israel is still criminal. But that's disingenuous if it does not matter, then why the NEED to use the word apartheid? Why has it never been used for any other country ever since SA? 21/

Predicted reply #2: “So proving legal definition of apartheid does not apply is your best defense against calling Israel apartheid?” No. Israel's alleged crimes outlined by NGOs to prove apartheid are also fabricated as documented in this report. END ngo-monitor.org/reports/thresh…