It takes oppressors a long time to use the most proper term for what they are engaged in -- not due to lack of intelligence, but to lack of moral courage. Or maybe they can only open up when they have painted themselves into the most desperate of corners, as this regime has certainly done. After all, they could have accepted Palestinian statehood 15 years ago, when less of the West Bank was stolen by settlers. Taken from a news story posted on a blog:
Israeli leaders rarely use the term "apartheid" in connection to the Palestinians. The term, however, has been used by Israel's harshest critics to accuse it of using apartheid tactics against the Palestinians.
"The simple truth is, if there is one state" including Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, "it will have to be either binational or undemocratic. ... if this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state."
The use of the word 'harsh' is funny. The word 'apartheid' is not harsh but merely descriptive. The reason this article feels compelled to call the word 'harsh' is simply due to the delicate, pro-Zionist sensibilities of the mainstream (even much of the liberal) media. Let me say this: if Ehud Barak can use the word, then its reasonableness can be assumed.