Disengagenment is not apartheid. Continued occupation over a people without participation in the election of the government ruing over them, is one sign of an apartheid regime. Whereas disengagement is premised on Israeli withdrawal from it's occupation burden and resulting Palestinian self government (something interrupted by the intifada). Thus the only people who could use the term apartheid for disengagement, are those who oppose the original partition of the land by the UN and instead support a unitary state. Ignoring the fact this is really an attack on nation states, the real apartheid is the demand for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza and the West Bank and the situation in places like Acre (limitations on Arabs in Israel). Neither party is blameless, but disengagement has nothing to do with it.
from the article: Sharon's second `big plan'