One of the primary goals of the Movement is to "normalize" the one state perspective in the West, in those countries that Israel relies upon to maintain its ethnocentric state and the status quo regarding the Palestinians. In that the "conventional wisdom" of much of the West, looking at examples like South Africa and the Old American South, tends to believe that multicultural democracies are generally positive, we have fertile ground in which to plant the seed that Israelis and Palestinians can co-exist within the same state. After all, no one ever believed that whites and non-whites could live together in South Africa or that Jews and non-Jews could live together in Germany after the Holocaust, but ultimately these beliefs have been proven to be false.

Therefore, those that openly advocate one democratic secular state for all its people in Israel/Palestine potentially represent a vital threat to Zionist ethnic supremacy supporters in those countries that Israel absolutely depends upon to maintain the status quo. Contrary to the pretense, Israel is not an independent country and if were not for the diplomatic protection it receives from primarily the United States as well as other means of support it receives from most of the Western world, Israel would simply HAVE to find a compromise with the Palestinians, just as happened in South Africa. Needless to say, Zionists and supporters of the existing ethnocentric system in Israel already recognize this threat.

What this means for the one state advocate is that virtually any call for one state in public almost automatically results in a flurry of protest and opposing view points. However, beyond the simple protest that one state advocacy amounts to a call for the "destruction of Israel" (Click here to see our advice on handling this canard) the only other real defense is that Israeli Jews "deserve" an ethnocentric state where they can lord their supremacy over millions of people not belonging to the ruling ethnic group. Obviously this argument resonates very poorly with most Westerners in general.

Therefore, in order to advance the one state case, really almost any public expression of this viewpoint results in a wide and effective opening to present our case. A "Letter to the Editor" or Op-Ed piece in your local newspaper, taking out an advertisement in almost any public forum, even raising the matter in other activist communities is almost guaranteed to open a debate and discussion on the matter. The possibilities are really only limited to the imagination of the activist and since Zionist opposition is almost a given, one can expect almost any public call for one state to effectively generate a flurry of activity.

One thing to keep in mind is that once you render the "destruction of Israel" case meaningless (Click here to see our advice on handling this canard), out of sheer desperation to invalidate your perspective you can expect to be accused of "anti-Semitism" and "Jew hatred", as the only other defense (that Zionists "deserve" a supremacist state) looks very bad to most Western eyes. Luckily, the Zionist Right-wingers have been grossly abusing the "anti-Semitism" libel to such an extent for the last few years, most activists take the charge with a grain of salt until there is substantive evidence to backup the claim. As we are progressive one state advocates, of course there should be no substance to any such charge against members of the MODSS project.