of this label far more clearly than it condemns Israel. It's beyond obvious that the facts on the ground do not support anything resembling legitimate grounds for labeling the State of Israel as an apartheid state. To lend it any semblance of success in this pointless exercise in futility, the established definitions of apartheid, such as in the Rome Statute of International Criminal Court or the United Nations' ICSPCA convention, are being completely disregarded, and new, largely arbitrary definitions of the term, never before established in law, are being used instead. Curiously but predictably, these new definitions are being applied exclusively to Israel, even though the examination of these made-up definitions will clearly show that they are equally or more applicable to a number of nations, states and governments, including a whole lot of states that surround Israel. In short, no matter how you look at it, the whole effort to malign Israel with an ill-fitting label (which, BTW, has close rhetorical ties to Iran's anti-Israeli propaganda) is an embarrassing display, intentional or not, of covert antisemitism.
Anyone remember UN Resolution 3379? That was the ridiculous resolution that equated Zionism with racism. The in-your-face bias of the resolution became obvious in a hurry, and the UN was so embarrassed by passing it that the UNGA voted to revoke it in 1991. Apparently, Amnesty has a short memory and is not keen on learning from history.
The history of the State of Israel has plenty of events worthy of criticism and even condemnation. Why, given the variety of topics to be critical of, would anyone discredit themselves with making stuff up for the sheer desire to spite one conspicuously chosen target?
= new reply since forum marked as read