Is Apartheid really dead?

Travel Info
"......Nor did the Palestinians err when they compared (George Bush's) statement to the Balfour Declaration (the British government's first world war promise to establish a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine) - even if they perhaps failed to grasp that the statement is liable to have implications yet more grave than the 1917 pledge, and will compel a substantive strategic change in their struggle.
And Sharon - will be surprised to discover that in Washington he was pushed into embracing an accelerated process of founding the state of Israel as a binational state based on apartheid. ...
"The day will come when believers in this illusion will realise that "separation" is a means to oppress and dominate... "
路 Meron Benvenisti, Israeli writer, political scientist and former deputy mayor of Jerusalem.

So the questions is; Is Apartheid really dead?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment...

Travel Tips

Zionism call for racial segregation in the holly land by all means. The concept of a Jewish state is segregationist concept itself.

Others
Yes I believe that apartheid is dead, but that 'Self Segregation' is alive and kicking and this will always be so.
Apartheid is not dead it's just called something else or it manifest itself in a deferent form or shape.

Can one totally eliminate apartheid? I don鈥檛 think so, in order for someone to feel big or reach, someone else will have to be small or poor.
Yes, Apartheid is dead. I completely disagree with the Apartheid methaphor conjured up. Apartheid was an ideology that preached segregation for purely racist reasons. Israel is adopting segregation (of Palestinians- but not Israeli Arabs, curiously) for the sake of preventing the Palestinians from dispatching wave after wave of suicide bombers into its cities to kill civilians, not out of some intentionally racist ideology. Big difference. Given the NECESSITY of Israel's segregation (unless you can come up with a reason for why the State should put it's peoples' lives at risk by not adopting such a policy), I find it inconceivable for someone to both MORALLY AND PRAGMATICALLY justify why Israel should not have such a policy. And in the chance that anyone can justify this, then I challenge them to propose a reasonable and implementable alternative.
NO IT IS NOT .ACTUALLY,NOW APARTHEID HAS A NEW MEANING BECAUSE GOES BOTH WAYS,FROM THE AFRIKAANS PEOPLE TO THE BLACK PEOPLE AND FROM THE BLACK GOVERNMENT TO ANY WHITES.
I suppose the muslim treatment of christians and other religious minorities in places like Pakistan, Iran, Saudi and Sudan could be compared with the former apartheid regimes, other than that I don't see it anymore.

EDIT: The author of the article you've cited may be too young to remember what apartheid was (you too for that matter), but since arabs are allowed to be in the knesset/marry israelis/attend cinemas/schools/restaurants with israelis, the apartheid label can't be applied to Israel. On the other hand in islamic countries where the testimony of a christian = partial testimony of a muslim etc., there are similarities. I'd be hesitant to apply the term to muslims though, it's obviously an attempt to try and move an agenda forward on the backs of the evils suffered by the black south africans in the apartheid days.
Apartheid was peculiar to South Africa. What they have now is not any better, all things taken into account.

This has no application to the Middle East.