Why not go with the actual definition of apartheid as provided in the international convention? Then you can see how disingenuous all the “sources” on which you choose to rely have been by redefining the term in the fine print (confident that few if any will notice the subterfuge) and then creating an echo chamber to provide a veneer of legitimacy for their falsehood. Under the convention, Israel is not and cannot be guilty of apartheid or maintaining an apartheid system. These groups’ political posture has nothing to do with actual legal argumentation, no matter the efforts to which they go to convince the unwary otherwise.
This comment is not addressed to you in particular, you seem too wedded to your ideological anti-Israel stance for this to make a difference, but to the fair and open minded reader who remains capable of absorbing facts.
Why not go with the actual definition of apartheid as provided in the international convention? Then you can see how disingenuous all the “sources” on which you choose to rely have been by redefining the term in the fine print (confident that few if any will notice the subterfuge) and then creating an echo chamber to provide a veneer of legitimacy for their falsehood. Under the convention, Israel is not and cannot be guilty of apartheid or maintaining an apartheid system. These groups’ political posture has nothing to do with actual legal argumentation, no matter the efforts to which they go to convince the unwary otherwise.
This comment is not addressed to you in particular, you seem too wedded to your ideological anti-Israel stance for this to make a difference, but to the fair and open minded reader who remains capable of absorbing facts.
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.10_International%20Convention%20on%20the%20Suppression%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Apartheid.pdf