i think he danced around the question of mass mobilization by talking about land ownership, but he didn't really answer it directly. there's some parallels in terms of segregation, but the better comparison in america's history is not to black slavery but to the genocide of it's indigenous population. nor is apartheid really the right comparison or description. it's genocide...

the direct answer is that the american economy relied on black labour, so civil disobedience produced a large amount of leverage in terms of it's ability to shut down the economy. israel does not have the same economic relationship with it's palestinian population. israel wants to be jewish from the bottom up, at all levels of their social hierarchy, and just be done with the palestinian "problem" altogether. so, israel would gleefully jump at the opportunity to replace striking arab israelis with ethnic jews.

i think the best thing to learn from looking at the two systems is how incomparable they are, and the analysis ought to be rooted in not applying methods that made sense in america but do not make sense in the middle east.

in fact, america has been trying very hard recently to create the kind of apartheid state that activists pretend exists by proposing the construction of palestinian factories to produce goods for the israeli market. the logic is it will cut down on unemployment, get the economy running and reduce poverty. it's a bad answer, but it's a bad situation. the israelis have consistently rejected these proposals. they don't want the palestinians to be economically subservient to them, they simply want them to cease to exist.