This reads like a thoughtless, knee-jerk reaction but I think there is opportunity for you to expand on your comment and guide the discussion to an interesting place.

Who is “they” in this case?

What war crimes are hidden by low quality satellite images that would have been exposed by high quality images?

Are there any competing ideas as to why these regions might be hidden?

> What war crimes are hidden by low quality satellite images that would have been exposed by high quality images?

““Deliberate targeting of civilian objects and extensive, unjustified destruction of property are war crimes. Destroying entire multi-storey homes making tens of families homeless amounts to collective punishment of the Palestinian population and is a breach of international law," Saleh Higazi, deputy director for the Middle East and North Africa at Amnesty International, said in a statement.” [1]

Having high resolution satellite imagery would certainly help determine what has been and hasn’t been targeted.

[1] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2021/05/israel-opt-cy...

Do those articles relate to low quality regions of Google Maps satellite imagery? That’s the connection that would be interesting in the context of the original article.

Do they provide the latitude and longitude in the article?

That's such trivialization of the word "apartheid", considering Gazans are under their own rule and that 20% of Israel are equal rights Arabs (something like 10% in France, for example). It has become a political term, but meaningless in practice.

Israeli here. I find the word apartheid pretty suitable to describe the situation of Palestinians living in the West Bank - no citizenship or voting right, many issues with land ownership, a majority controlled by a minority, etc etc.

Yes but this was referring to Gaza. Do you think that post disengagement Gazans live under "apartheid"? An Israeli can't even set foot there.

> Do you think that post disengagement Gazans live under "apartheid"?

Yes bantustans were an important part of apartheid, and Gaza is a bantustan on steroids. Both South Africa and Israel disclaimed responsibility for their respective bantustans, but at least South Africa at least formally granted them independence and (unsuccessfully, to be sure) tried to get them international recognition and engagement.

Israel, while disclaiming responsibility, also takes active diplomatic steps to deny Palestinian territories recognition as independent and actively seeks to thwart any international engagement with them.

The parent post didn't even mention Gaza (simply said "Israel is an apartheid state"), and you were the one who brought up lives of Israeli Arabs. For your question however, I don't think that apartheid is a suitable term to describe the terrible conditions Gazans are living in.

According to a recent Btselem study 25% of Israelis themselves think it's an appropriate term to use.

https://www.btselem.org/press_releases/2021413_new_all_popul...

It does seem to fit the definition. A pretty good outline for the case: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MknerYjob0w&feature=youtu.be