Thus, how politically expedient is the use of the A-word in developing productive dialogue and action to come to an agreement with Israelis and less rejection amongst Diaspora Jewish), for a settlement based on at least 1967 borders? As Chomsky has suggested, there’s a big difference between feel-good politics and good politics. My view is that those throwing around the A-word are shooting themselves in the foot, much as it makes for good publicity and protests for people looking for a cause in broader cultural wars against oppression, globalization etc. It also completely alienates most people in the international Jewish community who have, like it or not, a connection to Israel. It would be far better to just call the regime brutal, oppressive and racist, without associating it with a South African ideology that was a hop step and a jump away from Nazism….

In South Africa, the anti-Apartheid movement reached out to all communities with a vision of a new, non-racial South Africa. But in the case of Israel=Apartheid, there  is not an attempt to say to Israelis (and diaspora Jews) that in fact, the system which oppresses Palestinians is one which they should join in to oppose, in partnership, so that both sides are ‘liberated’.

Of course, it may be claimed that it is not the responsibility of Palestinians to liberate their oppressors, but that was the brilliance of the struggle in South Africa–it did incorporate all people, oppressors, and members of the oppressor community, and eventually it went through a process of reconciliation.

As Ray Hanina suggests in the article you have referenced, the labelling just makes things worse and is a strategic failure in reaching out to Jews who are appalled by Israeli behaviour, but don’t like the apparent group stigmatization. It also offers the political right an opportunity to attack the left on all fronts/causers.
I’d also say that has reached a point where it is time that the ‘what ifs’ should stop, and people on both sides of the debate in Melbourne need to get together and discuss the political options. I think that there are enough intelligent and polite people that this could happen. In any case it will break down a lot of stereotypes.
The question for me is visioning in fact, is it possible to build trust between communities in whatever state arrangement occur?  Can we stop whining about our particular vicitimhood and envisage what might be?
Are Israelis and Palestinians going to lay down the sword in the spirit of reconciliation (the great example being, for all its current faults, South Africa)?  Thus, in particular, is there enough common ground that will overcome the cries of extremists at both ends?  Will diasporas of both sides be able to give up some of their nostrums (I will write a post I hope in the near future about this)?  At a day to day level? Would an Jew share an apartment with a Palestinian (and vice versa). Or are we doomed, as in so many parts of the world, to have separate confessional communities walking on eggshells?
[If anyone is wondering why they can't comment on my piece at the AJDS site it is because of my lack of advanced skills--to restrict comments on only one or two pieces, rather than a whole class (node class).  AJDS would appreciate technical assistance, but false passports are not part of the deal ]

Here is a Palestinian columnist who disagrees with you.  

A quote:

THE WORD apartheid does not really apply accurately to the Palestinian-Israel conflict. The word occupation does. But the rejectionists no longer like the word occupation. Apartheid symbolizes the creation of one state, while occupation fuels the movement to create two.

I agree, the right of return would, indeed, kill Israel. That is why it is such a complicated conflict, and the sooner it is resolved the better.

I somewhat disagree – the Palestinians are a potential threat to Israel’s existence – if they insist on the right of return of all refugees to Israel proper then the demographic balance would be so affected as to permanently modify Israel. 

As I noted earlier to Larry this is an issue which is the killer of all potential deals – no Palestinian leadership will sign a peace deal which excludes this particular interpretation because they would not survive the retaliation by the refugees and militant factions which would oppose anything less.  Similarly, the Arab League/Saudi Initiative refers to the matter as well but deliberately leaves it to the Palestinians to decide how they want to enact the right of return. 

They have presented existential threats to Jordan as well, but were violently suppressed – longer term they may again present a significant threat to that country based on their demographic majority. 

The only solution is to build the wall on the Green Line and possibly transfer some additional land in the north/north east to the Palestinians, remove the settlements back into Israel and leave Gaza/WB/East Jerusalem/Golan/Sheb’aa Farms to their own devices – i.e. complete separation.  In the meantime build up a relationship with the EU and write off the rest of the ME – I suspect that they will never accept Israel fully anyways – and longer term they really have very little to provide Israel which is of any benefit.

My ancestors who lived in the shtetls of Eastern Europe didn’t get such resentment from pogroms, public discrimination, brutality and violence that they resorted to violence to solve their problems.  I’d follow their example then and now if I was Palestinian. 

But hey – don’t let these inconvenient facts get in the way of your assumptions of what others would do in your moralising diatribes…