I'm not at all clear how it is possible to argue that the situatioin in Israel/Palestine does not involve a kind of apartheid. (McGrath)

(1) Within the country of Israel there is no physical segregation according to language or ethnic origin I would know of. That's why I see nothing meriting the name Apartheid there.
(2) A wall between countries can be called a lot of things (as I know from my own country) but I have never heard the term Apartheid used for that.
(3) If the winner of a war takes territories not formerly being part of her country that can be called many names, in the case of Israel I'd call it stupid and some other names, but I have not yet heard that taking over of a part of a country being called Apartheid.

South Africa was a country segregating within its own boundaries and planning to 'source out' some pieces of SA with a part (a particular part) of its own population. Israel is a country that after having won a war has (stupidly, I repeat) annected some parts of other countries, treats these parts as its own territory and builds a wall to prevent people from neighbouring countries/territories entering Israel without permission.

If one swallows the Hamas propaganda unthinkingly then the whole country is still 'Palestine' with some Jews living in there. From that point of view, they call it 'Apartheid', for they do not want to have an Israel in the whole of 'Palestine' at all.

Wolfgang