The comparison is compelling, provided one ignores the facts. I'll give Levy credit for succinctly stating the Apartheid argument, which incorrectly claims that: 1) a Jewish state is inherently antidemocratic; 2) religious claims have no moral or legal validity; 3) military occupation is inherently unjustified. The short response to this triple-canard is: 1) It is not a sin of the Jewish nation that like all ancient nations, religion is an integral part of the nationality (the sin is in denying Jewish religio-nationalism its legitimacy); 2) the Int'l Court of Justice has issued opinions that take into consideration religious ties. Moreover, in the case of Judaism's claims via the Torah, the Quran and Hadith completely validate these (e.g. Q5:20-21), such that Islamic antizionism is actually antiIslamic!; 3) the 4th Geneva Convention absolutely allows occupation in Israel's situation, and does not limit it by time, but only by the complete cessation of hostilities (1 year after, actually). Since hostilities never ended, the occupation is justified. These are short answers, but point those interested in facts in the right direction.
Roadside bomb kills five border officers in western Iraq (AP)
from the article: Apartheid, by any other name