Great point, you can never argue that Israel is an apartheid state inside the green line, in fact inside the green line its the most democratic state on earth, Its a fact based on its electoral system which surely this keen aussie knows, albeit he probably hates to admit. But, if you say settlements are illegal, how can Israel be an apartheid state? You are arguing that settlements are illegal because its building outside of its recognized borders, but then how can the people who live there be deserving of rights of citizenship? They should be deserving of GCIV of laws that apply to them, but laws that do not apply to persons living in occupied/disputed zones are not the same that apply to citizens of the occupying forces (or forces in disputed zone). Surely you have to agree that Israel can't impose civil law on the territories that would be against INTL Law, so the fact that there are two sets of laws 1 for those in Israel proper and 1 for those in the terirtories is the only legal administration. Now if you argue that those laws are unjust or unfair or do not allow for Palestinians to flourish as greatly as they can, that doesnt make Israel apartheid that makes it something else. So the question is, why are you using that word? The reason, in my mind at least, SHOCK AND AWE and to achieve the same ends, divestment, boycotts and sanctions resulting in what happened in South Africa, a binational state. And if so, you are being a propagandist, professing information you know to be false for a specific end.
from the article: Goldstone: Israel is not an 'apartheid state'