The introduction to the article is also very POV:
"The term *apartheid* commonly refers to South African apartheid , a former official policy of political, legal, and economic racial discrimination against nonwhites. The application of the term to situations other than apartheid in South Africa is controversial and disputed, and is regarded as a political epithet."
1) The intro suggests that any use of the term apartheid to describe situations outside of South Africa is a "political epithet" when 3 of 4 sources provided only refer to the use of the term apartheid to describe Israel and the fourth says "cultural apartheid" is an epithet.
2) the intro seems to assert as a fact that the term is a "politcial epithet" when in fact that's a POV.
Does any objective person consider it to be NPOV?
*Israel* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid *Main article: Allegations of Israeli apartheid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheidhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid
The phrase "Israeli apartheid" (or the terming of Israelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israelan "apartheid state") is a controversial phrase used by some critics of Israel, who compare Israel's treatment of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheidPalestinianshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinianswith the treatment of blacks in apartheid-era South Africa. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid[82]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid#_note-PilgerThe majority of academics and journalists who have commented on the term are reported to deplore its use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid[83]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid#_note-Adamon the grounds that it is historically inaccurate, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheidantisemitichttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid[84]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid#_note-Pulzerpropaganda, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid[83]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid#_note-Adamand a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheidpolitical epithethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_epithetused to justify http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheidterrorist attacks against Israel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid[85]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid#_note-Phillips
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid
For one thing the sentence states as fact that the term "Israeli apartheid" is "*historically inaccurate, *antisemitichttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid, propaganda, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheidand a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheidpolitical epithethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_epithetused to justify http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheidterrorist attacks against Israel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid" something a wikipedia article should not be asserting. Secondly the paragaraph is not neutral and strongly weighted with the view that Israeli apartheid is not an acceptable term.
Several editors have attempted to correct this paragraph's bias but they have been blocked by a larger number of determined editors pushing a POV against the term.