Top House Democrats reject Rep. Jayapal's comments calling Israel a 'racist state'

[Beastly Boy]

64. Your address of the subject skirts the very evidence which conflicts with your conclusion.

While certainly poor, Pramila's choice of words was calculated, deliberate and consistent with a larger narrative whose language is by purpose and design intended to elicit a knee-jerk reaction of contempt towards the State of Israel, not to be factually accurate. It was poor because it was distasteful, not because it was unintentional. Her choice of words is equally inapplicable to the State of Israel as it is to its government. Her words alone may not be of any consequence, but they parrot an all-too-familiar patently false yet vigorously promoted anti-Israel narrative, and THAT is consequential.

Then you quote the definition of apartheid without citing its source. Well, I did some homework, and it turns out your source is Quizlet, an online learning tool, not a legal reference resource (https://quizlet.com/160461612/unit-3-the-civil-rights-movement-flash-cards/). Ok, we have a flashcard, but what is the legal definition of apartheid, the only one of any consequence? I tried to steer you to it, but you ignored my attempt. Well, I will persist. Here is the link to the Rome Statute of International Criminal Court, which includes the legal definition of apartheid, among other things: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/rome-statute-international-criminal-court.

And here is the definition:
2(h) "The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime

This gives you a complete answer to your attempted rhetorical question of "So if this isn't apartheid, what is it?" As you can see, "institutionalized regime of systematic oppression", "domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups" and "intention of maintaining that regime" are all necessary ingredients of apartheid. If one of them is missing, it ain't apartheid. So if you don't find at least two racial groups involved, and neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians are racial groups, you are out of arguments right there, and no deflection will change that. This alone should compel you to reconsider the way you should use or not use "apartheid" in a sentence. So should AOC, Tlaib, Jayapal, Omar, and a whole other bunch of activists who call themselves "progressive".

Lastly, the excerpt from Al Jazeera itself points you to the same source for answers that show how wrong their report is. But again, deportation as it is defined by the Rome Statutes referred to in the article does not apply to the case they are reporting about. Al Jazeera failed to report that the case has to do with eviction, not deportation. It stems from the israeli Supreme Court decision that is based on the record of legal transfers of the title to the property dating back to 1949, when the Jewish legal holders of the title were forcibly deported from their Jerusalem home in violation to the Rome Statutes, and this unbroken record of title transfers doesn't include the Sub Laban family. That's right, they have been squatters on the property that never belonged to them for 70 years, and now, after many years of delays, the property is being returned to its rightful owners. It is not a crime, let alone an international crime, but mitigation of a crime previously perpetrated on a Jewish family. So much for the "deportation" outrage.

Believe it or not, evicting squatters is not included in the legal definition of apartheid or international war crimes either.