According to the multiple reports, Israeli apartheid includes the treatment of 'Israeli Arabs', along with different levels of apartheid in Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza.You posted asking how Israel treated the Arabs who chose to stay after the Partition Plan was approved in an attempt to portray Israel as disgusting. I answered in stating the fact that the ones who chose to stay became full citizens just as Israel promised, fully engaged in all aspects of Israeli society, and according to polling, their descendants feel connected to Israel and want to remain Israeli.
And no, passing legislation to take abandoned property from people who didn't want to be part of your country sounds harsh but it is the reality of the two way population transfer that happened. The difference is Israel took the property to support the integration of 800,000 Arab Jews chased from their homes who's only crime was being Jewish while the Arab states confiscated property of Jews and then kept the 750,000 Arab refugees locked in camps without rights.
Life is harsh but you don't see discussion about the 15 million refugees from the partition of India and their lost property. You don't hear the whining that the 1.6 million Greek and 400,000 Turks being forcibly transferred. Same with the Romanian/Bulgarians transfer, Turkey forcing the partition of Cyprus, of the transfers of Germans, Poles, etc. after WWII. It's only because Arab leaders took advantage to propagate the conflict by refusing to integrate the 750,000 refugees from the war they declared.
None of your other examples live under apartheid military rule, none have experienced genocide.
Are you also a Kahanist, like shack?
Would you call him out for being a Kahanist or cheer it on quietly?