1: Raw video by The Guardian, not even much commentary, see with your own eyes: https://youtu.be/ksnLom8OD9E?si=aYvcLqcLQK960fbx
I don't know what exactly happened with those people - though by the fact that they call Jewish inhabitants of Jerusalem "settlers" I can know I can't trust a word that they are saying, and the source - which is the horrendously biased against Israel Guardian - even if everything that they say were true (which I very much suspect isn't), it looks like a property dispute, very likely based on the habit of certain parts of the population (not only Arabic, but often also) to build things first and apply for permits never. This is not always prosecuted, but sometimes it is. Sometimes it leads to very nasty disputes. Never has anything to do with "apartheid", which is lack of rights based on race (or, I allow it, ethnicity). Again, Arabs in Israel enjoy exactly the same rights, so the claim of "apartheid" is pure libel. That doesn't change an iota even if you find some instance of somebody being unjustly treated by somebody else or the legal system (again, I have zero reason to believe The Guardian in this particular case, but even if it did, it would have nothing to do with supposed "apartheid").
Also I note if you watch the film carefully, the Arabs do not just demand the property. They demand the Jews to leave Jerusalem (1:26). Israel is just fine with Arabs living in Jerusalem (even if some may claim they are not fairly treated). Arabs are not fine with Jews living in Jerusalem. And we just witnessed on October 7th what they do to Jews they're not fine with, when they can. In Jerusalem, they can't. But they still would like to. I don't think when they are deprived of this capacity, it's called "apartheid" - it's not what that word was supposed to mean.
I should have been clearer.
The GP claims that calling for the cessation of existence of an apartheid state is considered justified by the world.
He's correct. Most of the world would consider it justified.
But ... most of the world would not consider it justified to call for the cessation of existence of an entire country and, by extension, it's people.
South Africa was the first and the defining apartheid state. People called for the cessation of existence of the state. Anyone calling for the cessation of existence of the South African country would have been considered insane.
Additionally, the argument presented by GP is invalid anyway:
1. Everyone wants an apartheid state to cease existence
2. $COUNTRY is run by an apartheid state.
3. Therefore, everyone is calling for the cessation of existence of $COUNTRY.
It's simply invalid. The presence of assertions #1 and #2 above does not lead to the conclusion #3 above.
Any reason other than hyperbole that you consider Israel to be an apartheid state, as compared to the rest of the Arab countries?