So, you want to advocate for one state but you're constantly confronted with the charge of wanting to "destroy" Israel?

One interesting thing about one state advocacy is that it completely changes the terms of the debate. The settlements are no longer an issue, they can stay, just not as racist enclaves (following the precedent set by Qaadan v. Katzir); Jerusalem/Al Quds need not be redivided, and so on. The only actual defense is that this means the "destruction of Israel" with the false implication that this means actually destroying something. This is by far the most common "counter-point" to one state advocacy.

Advocating for one state in a sense does mean the "destruction of Israel" as a racist exclusionary regime, but it in no way means the actual physical destruction of anything. The progressive one state position advocates co-existence and reconciliation. Thus what we're talking about is a political and legal transformation of Israel into a state for all its people. This in no way means or implies the physical "destruction" of anything, even the notorious settlements.

The false implication that the one state scenario means the physical destruction of Israel rests upon the old P.L.O. one state position, which demanded one state, but also excluded the Zionists (not Jews, Palestinian Jews were always recognized as Palestinian by the PLO even at the height of its militancy) from citizenship. This, of course, meant the destruction of Israel and the disenfranchisement of the vast majority of Israeli Jews. Thus, before the P.L.O. adopted a two-state separatist position, the demand for "one state" did indeed mean the physical destruction of Israel as such as well as the displacement of most Israeli Jews. Thus the charge that one state advocates are calling for the "destruction" of Israel.

However, as should be quite clear, the modern progressive one state position rejects the idea that Israeli Jews should be disenfranchised or displaced. Our view is that Israeli Jews and Palestinians can co-exist within the same state. Therefore our call for one state is quite different than the old P.L.O. position, but the Zionist defense has remained the same.

Therefore, when confronted with the argument it is of vital importance that you clearly state that you are NOT talking about the physical destruction of anything, instead you are talking a political and legal transformation of Israel into a state where all its people have the same rights, obligations, and privileges. Examples can be cited - South Africa, the Old American South, &c. - to show that such a transformation does not involve the physical destruction of anything.