By the laws it enacts and the oppression they enable, it is the definition of a racist state.
The world is beginning to see it too, though very slowly.
Regarding the apartheid analogy:
I don't want to get into a semantic sleight of hand here, but the term apartheid comes from Dutch Afrikaans to describe their rule over South Africa. I genuinely don't believe the analogy of Dutch settlers colonizing Africa is comparable to displaced Jews establishing Israel. But again, you could consider my use of colonizing versus establishing a semantic sleight of hand. Depending on your definition of colonization, you could say Israel is a colonial state. I'm not saying that's what you're saying, but I don't agree with that definition.
If we're defining racism as unequal treatment of different groups based on race, then yes, Israel is a racist state because clearly, as is evident from this article, they are treating groups differently based on race (that is, if we're defining Judaism as a racial/ethnic designation rather than a religious one). I will not defend Israel's treatment of the Palestinian people, but I think it is worth defending the concept of Israel as a state that does not fundamentally need to be racist.
What else is it but a sleight of hand? Like in your first comment, all of your words are chosen to sound like Israel was formed on un-ocuppied land, as if the Zionist movement found a piece of desert and established a Jewish state there, and now their envious neighbors are seeking to colonize and attack them. In fact, they came and settled an area of immense religious significance to half the world's population that had been inhabited by hundreds of thousands or millions of Arabs for hundreds of years.
And they came with the explicit intention of not only living there, but being the majority population there: an act that explicitly required an ethnic cleansing (or genocide) of Palestine by its very definition.
However, OP used no semantic sleights and the suggestion he did is concerning to discourse. He was describing its origins, and you its current conditions. If you reject the idea the Jewish people would like / need a homeland then just say that.
“ Regarding comments I'm seeing here saying Israel is an apartheid state or that Israel is racist or that Israel the concept of a Jewish state is disgusting”
Then later on says:
“Israel was not built by its founders to be a melting pot, it was built as a home for displaced Jewish people. It was not built to be a place of equality, and unfortunately, by its nature it cannot be one and continue to serve its purpose”
How does that make sense? How is this logically coherent?
Well its no different to showing you a pack of cards (i.e Israel is not a place of equality by their own omission).
And then making the entire pack of cards disappear (calling Israel is racist).
Granted OP does it in a different order.
Dude should be on Penn and Teller hes a goddamn magician.
I would still love to meet Penn and Teller though.