Please see the complete article for more on the subject (I just quoted one of the most relevant passages).

It is thus easy to see that Israel is not an apartheid state. All citizens of Israel (whether Muslim or Jewish, Arab or European) have equality before the law. There is nothing close to resembling the separate provision of amenities – Muslims and Jews use the same hospitals, Muslims and Jews use the same public transport, Muslims and Jews all vote in Israeli elections, Muslims and Jews can run for election etc etc. Muslims in Israel can choose to study in the language of their preference and Arabic is even one of the national languages of Israel. In apartheid South Africa, although blacks made up over 80% of the population, not a single African language was recognised by the state.

So why does the comparison still stick? The peddlars of this fraudulent comparison often focus on the Bantustan analogy in order to push it.

The peddlars explain that the West Bank and Gaza (Palestinian territories) equate to the old South African Bantustans. It is claimed that this 'separation' is a convenient measure for the Jews to devoid themselves of responsibility for the Palestinians. (As a side note, it is this that is the real "Transfer" problem in Israel - - the transfer of all responsibility for the Palestinians to Israel. The Palestinians are never responsible for anything, not even for themselves).

The problem with the comparison is that the separation between Israel and the Palestinian territories is more akin to the separation between South Africa and Mozambique (or any other bordering state) than to South Africa and the Bantustans.