Why ‘apartheid’ is the right word to describe Israel

Andy Leitner apparently objects to the use of the word “apartheid” to describe the situation in Israel/Palestine. Four million Palestinians are hemmed into several disconnected cantons in the West Bank and Gaza, which together comprise less than 10 per cent of the overall territory bordering Jordan and the Mediterranean.  They are barred from entering Israel proper and movement between the cantons in the West Bank is restricted.  They are barred from Jewish-only settlements in the West Bank and barred from using settler-only roads – which in effect create more walls in addition to the “separation barrier”. They are not citizens of the state so they are not represented in parliament and cannot vote – therefore they cannot legally object to the land seizures, house demolitions, water theft, etc. They face military law not civil law, which means they can be detained for any reason for an extended period. Israel cannot recognise them as nationals because then it would not be a “Jewish state” as it claims to be.  
Despite this predicament, Israel refuses to remove the occupying settlements and withdraw to the 1967 borders. Occasionally, claims are made that it “offered” to withdraw at some time or another, but these claims are simply lies; it only offers more apartheid, it has never offered to withdraw to the internationally recognised border. And yet it expects the world to “recognise” it as a Jewish state.
Sam Khoury
Bangkok