Indeed, re: point C Chomsky has argued similarly, eg: this from the Cast Lead era:

'Take, say, the term “apartheid.” In the Occupied Territories, what Israel is doing is much worse than apartheid. To call it apartheid is a gift to Israel, at least if by “apartheid” you mean South African-style apartheid. What’s happening in the Occupied Territories is much worse. There’s a crucial difference. The South African Nationalists needed the black population. That was their workforce. It was 85 percent of the workforce of the population, and that was basically their workforce. They needed them. They had to sustain them. The bantustans were horrifying, but South Africa did try to sustain them. They didn’t put them on a diet. They tried to keep them strong enough to do the work that they needed for the country. They tried to get international support for the bantustans.

The Israeli relationship to the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories is totally different. They just don’t want them. They want them out, or at least in prison. And they’re acting that way. That’s a very striking difference, which means that the apartheid analogy, South African apartheid, to the Occupied Territories is just a gift to Israeli violence. It’s much worse than that. If you look inside Israel, there’s plenty of repression and discrimination. I’ve written about it extensively for decades. But it’s not apartheid. It’s bad, but it’s not apartheid. So the term, I just don’t think is applicable.' - https://www.democracynow.org/2014/8/8/noam_chomsky_what_israel_is_doing

Stuck with me, as well as the way Israel apologists freely make comparisons with native americans when trying to get the US onside - as in "you wouldn't consider giving land back to the native Americans, why would we consider it with the Palestinians". A sign of their comfort with the same kind of genocidal 'solutions' as were implemented in the Americas towards the indigenous population. As we see.

cheers,
I