You can criticize Israel all you want without making it a blood libel. As I said, that is not a problem. I will accuse people of blood libel when part of their strategy is the intentional misuse of language to intentionally deceive and misrepresent reality or if they spread lies. If you don't like it, don't do it. You may or may not be right about the international law usage, the question is whether the person on the street understands it as such and whether you have clarified it enough that they can understand what you're talking about.

This Palestine you're referring to, is that a country? What are its UN recognized borders? What does it even mean "if you practice apartheid in Palestine"?

You're seriously telling me that there's more convincing evidence that Israel broke international laws than that China, or Yemen, or Syria, or Russia, or the US, or the UK, (EDIT: this list is endless but I can add to it) broke international laws? So I'll pick the "conspiracy against Israel" (or more like politics of the not free world mixed with antisemitism) until you can show me how the UN is indeed treating everyone with no bias. EDIT: Also note this is not the same as claiming that Israel broke no international laws, though I think in the specific cases you're referring to it does not.

EDIT: "Israel is a modern state which deserves the scrutiny we give other states" -> totally agree.

EDIT2: Even Israelis don't understand "apartheid state" to mean what you think it means. So basically nobody understands the way you put it other then maybe some international law experts (including myself honestly, I'd have to spend time reading international law). But for the purpose of our "blood libel" topic if you say "I claim Israel practices apartheid within the occupied territories of the west bank that remain under their control, not like the south african apartheid which is how this word is commonly understood, but the crime of apartheid as defined by international law XXXX" then maybe it's something we can have an intelligent debate about and I won't automatically label it as "blood libel" like I would the generic usage of "apartheid state" without any other qualifiers.

EDIT3: "> "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;"

I would need to read more details about the "inhumane acts" but it's worth pointing out that a) Israelis are not a racial group. Palestinians are also not a racial group. b) The Oslo agreements, the withdrawal from Gaza, and other peace efforts are proof that there's no "intention of maintaining that regime". Mostly it's the Palestinians that are intent on maintaining the regime. Again, I'm not going to deny what's going on in the west bank between (mostly Jewish) settlers and (mostly Arab) Palestinians but the UN/ICJ processes are just a political circus with no fairness or justice and are not the way we make progress in this conflict. It's a choice of the Palestinians to not engage (and sure of the Israeli government as well) after they sabotaged the Oslo accords (and by they I mean Hamas mostly, who are, Palestinians).