The sensible ppl who dispute this libelous claim are not, by and large, saying that Israel would have to exactly replicate SA to be called an "apartheid" state. The comparison is inapposite for several glaring reasons, including, among others, the ability of Israeli Arabs to live with Jews, study with Jews, and attain high-status careers alongside Jews. There's also the separate issue that the double standard applied to Israel (Kurds, Tamils, and others are never discussed in editorials as victims of apartheid, of course) delegitimizes the "apartheid" standard, if one ever existed, altogether. Anyone with corneas can see that the word has been revived solely for the purpose of slandering Israel - those who draw the analogy while pretending to care about the evils of "apartheid" in any general moral or legal sense are full of it - they don't. This tiresome propaganda campaign has accomplished nothing more than reducing the legacy of apartheid in SA into a marketing ploy. You can cite statistics to say whatever you want and you can cite vaguely worded Conventions to say whatever you want. International Law does not operate on the principle of - find some general language and you're good to go. Its time the author and his like-minded malcontents realized this.
U.S. Republican John Kasich says he is suspending his presidential campaign (Reuters)
from the article: An apartheid of hearts, minds and international law