Interesting, the definition of apartheid is “any system or practice that separates people according to color, ethnicity, caste, etc.? This essentially boils down to an arbitrary distinction made by ruling government over what it deems to be an internal ethnic group by some “marker” like those listed explicitly or by the “etc.”. It is usually associated with laws that back those practices. As law defines a “system,” it is the easiest referential point to turn to in the determination if a country is imposing an apartheid state on some repressed group. In about 15 states in the United States below the Mason-Dixon Line, apartheid was re-achieved after 1870 after the Civil War. President Grant helped to stamp out explicitly “racist” laws, or laws of system separation where ethnicity was explicitly mentioned, like in Mississippi’s vagrancy laws of 1865. Sheriffs were given the power of law to arrest negroes under various trivial reasons and then sheriffs were allowed to auction them off in the next couple years if they (newly freed slaves) couldn’t pay their fines. The auction system was done in the law by “call out” and allowed only white bidders, ensuring many were returned to plantations under a one year contract to pay off the vagrancy fine legally put upon them. Needless to say that the sheriff didn’t write and pass the law but the newly restored plantation class did.
But after 1872, the white conservative legislatures in certain created new laws sprung back up in new forms by explicit mention of ethnicity. By law, whites engorges could not marry, could not attend the same schools, etc. These were apartheid laws on a state by state basis as ethnicity was specifically mentioned. These laws did NOT exist North of the Mason-Dixon Line in that time. Thus, we shoudl really use the phrase apartheid and not “Jim Crow”, even though the word apartheid was given to these types of laws until 1945 -1950 when South Africa created their system of laws. Germany’s “Nuremberg laws” were apartheid laws as well, separating ethnicities in practices of marriage, etc., much the same as the South did. OF course, the South had more horrific laws before the Civil War. The last explicitly made apartheid law I’ve found was made in Florida in 1967 to separate beaches between negroes and whites.
The point is that it is the laws to start with. There are two sets of laws in Israel made by the Israeli government to segregate daily practices of treating people by ethnicity. One is for Israelis and one is for Palestinians. The Palestinians are subjected to continual stops by Israeli soldiers, a practice based on those laws, which Israel calls martial laws. While the rest of the world may view Gaza and West Bank as different countries, Israel does not. It treats the entire territory it captured in the 1967 war as belonging to it and all of is under their border and therefore laws of apartheid, martial law. So from the perspective of the Israeli government, there are really two sets of laws it imposes over its claimed territory, which includes Gaza that Israel built an imposing cage around and prevented the movement of Palestinians from leaving unless going through strict military checkpoints.

For an early example of how Israel seized the West Bank and Gaza by attacking America and then forcing the US government to control the media narrative, listen to the American soldiers (sailors) in the intelligence agency interviewed in the half hour documentary on YouTube titled “The Day Israeli Attacked America.” Much of the information was buried by both governments for decades and decades since 1967. Americans died in that brief one-sided war the Israeli Air Force inflicted on us and stopped the US from retaliating after being deliberately attacked and killed. Israeli quietly paid some trivial reparations for murdering Americans. The Americans get to testify for the first time throughout. The president was threatened to be “primaried” by the Jewish lobbyists, who are finally revealed at the end of the documentary by name, top level people surrounding LBJ including a SCOTUS Justice who had a secret lunch with him.

I knew none of this until a couple nights ago and was startled by depth of control over America which I saw on November 5th when AIPAC tweeted out how 342 of “their” candidates won elections in Congress. They spent $40 million to primary two black democrats out of office by using the Democrat party to do so. It was the most spent by a foreign lobbying firm ever in a primary and it was because of

I’ve only recently come to see that a false moral equivalency is made constantly in America, especially during our election season. It is one where economic success is equated with political success and where moral success is somehow secondary or just assumed to be tied to economic success. But Carter, while having his faults, was one of the most moral Presidents we’ve had. Was he an economic “failure”, yes, it appears so by the stats you gave. But the immorality in the environment he grew up in, a white man in Georgia where the white state legislatures created an apartheid legal system explicitly into the state laws, meant he had to emerge from that repressive system created deliberately to subjugate citizens by their ethnicity—black Americans. The state was not even one decade out of that explicit apartheid when he became president. The SCOTUS Loving decision ended one form of apartheid laws in that state in 1967 and the FHA laws of 1968 ended another. At least legally raising black Americans to “full citizenship’ even if the practices of the white who controlled all the private and public major institutions continued to still practice segregation.
So start with the law. Israel has built itself—as it sees itself—into an apartheid state by law since 1967, evolving stricter, more brutal segregationist policies and practices with every decade since needed to maintain that resisted segregation much as Georgia did. That evolution of it derives from the same belief of ethnic difference and claim to the borders. I also saw a great one man play called “Like a Bullet in the Head” back in college decades ago about an Arab-Israeli man who has an Affair with a Jewish Israeli woman and the jealous Israeli man or husband. Very intense and displayed the internal animosity of Arab-Israelis. It was written by an Arab-Israeli playwright as I recall. The Arabs though are of Bedouin origin as i recall and considered ethnically different by Israel. One recent short documentary showed how they use Arab-Israelis in the Israeli media who are aligned with the right-wing government of Netanyahu. I’ve heard interviews of course with Israeli leftist Jews and journalists who do call the current situation a genocide. And one in the Knesset who documented the Israeli brutality against West Bank Palestinians, stealing their last in the year before October 7.
Another documentary from Vice on YouTube about young Jews in America was very worth while title “Israelism: How Young American Jews of Israeli are shifting.” It intelligently explores this shift from the “programs” designed in jewish day schools and continued in Hillel in American colleges that I did know about either and large stadium packed “concerts” put on in america for young Jews, apparently by AIPAC or Israeli, with Israeli soldiers who testify to their love of Israel, creating a one-side blindness. It was like “Den of Spies”, the new book of investigative journalism written over 35 years about how Reagan’s team worked with Israeli and Iran to prevent the hostage release, having Reagan win the help of this literal “treason” as the author notes.