Thread by @Aizenberg55

🧵Genocide is the libel of the moment, but calling Israel apartheid remains key to NGO lawfare against Israel. This thread proves that under international law apartheid cannot apply to Israel/Palestine so NGOs knowingly lied to change the definition. It's simple to expose: 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 its legal definition, the Israel-Palestine conflict cannot be apartheid. 2/

Apartheid is defined in int'l law in two places which is not in dispute: 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: 3/

1973 Apartheid Convention also makes clear “apartheid” is a crime of racial segregation, specifically as practised in South Africa. 1998 Rome removed reference to South Africa (as apartheid ended by 1994) but maintained apartheid’s strict definition as only racial. 4/

Since apartheid is a racial crime only it presents a fatal flaw to claiming Israel is apartheid. So NGOs falsely claim that “racial” includes differences in ethnicity, descent or national origin. HRW explains their interpretation of "racial" below (Amnesty says same thing): 5/

But Rome is 100% clear that "racial" is totally separate from all other identity factors! Rome Article 7.1(h) SEPARATES "racial" from "political, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender." See text. This is fatal to NGO claim of Israeli apartheid. The solution? LIE. 6/

HRW further misrepresents by claiming Rome did not define “racial” group – knowingly obscuring that Rome makes clear that racial IS NOT political, national, ethnic, cultural, religious or gender. So to claim racial can be one of these other 6 categories is a deliberate lie. 7/

Paragraph 1(j) from above lists apartheid as a Crime Against Humanity. Rome later specifically defines apartheid (see #3 above) referring back to 1(j). Apartheid is exclusively racial. If Rome meant to include other identity factors in apartheid it would have said so! 8/

HRW & Amnesty omit Article 7.1(h) in their analysis because it proves Rome DID NOT broaden definition of "racial" to include other things as the NGOs claim. Rome plainly lists other things separate from racial. In fact Rome is quite specific defining Apartheid as ONLY racial. 9/

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 1998 Rome. Here is what HRW & Amnesty say: 10/

All NGOs charging Israel with Apartheid, such as @YeshDin in 2020 report (see below) perform same falsification of law by taking the 1965 ICERD definition of racial and inserting it into 1998 Rome even though Rome clearly says racial IS NOT national, ethnic, political etc. 11/

1973 Apartheid Convention also defines apartheid as purely "racial" evoking South Africa. Here "racial" is not defined or separated from other things, but 1998 Rome does make racial distinct, so the claim that racial has legally broadened over time is a lie. 12/

How else can we prove that Rome was quite deliberate and strict in separating 7 categories of identity? Meaning racial is literally racial, not other things? Because other crimes are specific to certain identities like Genocide. Genocide is broader. But apartheid is not. 13/

Rome lists many crimes; many apply to “any civilian population.” Genocide to national, ethnic, racial or religious groups (not cultural, gender, political). Apartheid applies only to racial. It's plain and simple. Racial does not mean any of these 6 other identities. 14/

What’s notable is that in pages and pages of legal analysis in @yeshdin @hrw @amnesty reports arguing Israel is apartheid, none address clause 7.1(h) of Rome and how it treats racial separately. Deliberate avoidance! Because they know it is fatal to their entire thesis. 15/

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