This article is pushing an agenda to drive the narrative that the anti-semitism being allowed as part of the pro palestinian endorsements is somehow any different than Jim Crow or other discriminatory practices. The hypocrisy is so thick you can cut it with a knife

I was a bit put off by the use of “apartheid” in “Martin is an outspoken critic of Israel’s apartheid government and anti-Palestinian policies” but then I googled “apartheid israel” and saw, “Israel has been described as an "apartheid" state by some scholars, United Nations investigators, human rights groups critical of Israeli policy and supporters of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel. The description has also been used by several Israeli former politicians.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy) I still think the term is contentious. But the article otherwise does a good job of showing the context / consequences of our politicians using civil rights statutes and human-rights principles, against rights, beliefs and debate that the right wing wants to silence.