Well, yes, it is a form of apartheid & much to be deplored therefore: esp as the situation represents that peculiarly vitiating wilfulness of the Israelis (which, as I never tire of saying, is what has turned me right off their demographic), in persisting in putting their settlements in such disputed territory in order to make unnecessary political points, when there was plenty of land available elsewhere which they could equally well have settled without such alienatory destructiveness of decent ordinary people's welfare & livelihoods [I'm back to those intensely symbolic olive trees -- sorry, but they are a bit of a thing of mine!].

However, maybe 'apartheid' is a bit of an over-emotional locution due to its S African origins and history. I can't feel the Israeli actions, deplorable as they are, are quite deserving of such an intensely loaded term, with its overtones & associations of political assassination, gross overuse of capital punishment, and intense exploitation, oppression and deprivation of rights. As with 'Nazi', its use strikes me of being in danger of appearing as counterproductive overstatement. They are thoroughly objectionable indeed: but Netenyahu is not, surely, quite in the Hitler, or even the Malan, league of objectionability!

~M~