Jim Crow must be a myth, then? As you note, colored South Africans had a lesser house, and Indians a lesser one still. So they must not have been subjects of South African apartheid?
And of course, all instances of apartheid must cleave perfectly in every way to South Africa's. Sort of like how only Italian fascism can actually be fascism.
Except that's not the case at all.
Different states operate their oppressive, racist policies in different ways because - get this - they are different states with different cultures, histories, and outlooks. it does not lessen the problem, it's just a different variation on the same problem.
When Palestinians ruled by Israel have representation in Knesset - and those representatives have power and weight equal to their non-Arab counterparts, you may have an argument to go on. But currently Israel rules big swatches of Palestine, and Palestinians have no say in how they are governed. In other parts, Israel rules by proxy, and Palestinian still have no say in how things are managed. In the third and final parts of Palestine, Palestinians do have self-rule... and Israel has effective veto power.
You want to claim there is no apartheid? Then work to either end the occupation or incorporate Palestine into Israel fully and legally. Because so long as Palestine is ruled by Israel, while Israel treats Palestinian land as Israeli land, while affording no rights to the people on that land, then you have an apartheid system. One distinct from the South Africna model. Which was distinct from the Namibian model. Which was distinct from the Rhodesian model. Which is distinct from the Us model. Which is distinct from the Lebanese model. Which is distinct from the Kuwaiti model. Which is distinct from the Australian model. Which was distinct fro mthe Indian model. But all are / were apartheid systems.
= new reply since forum marked as read