The other day I attended a little weekly meeting that several of us local activists hold at a coffee shop just to keep each other updated about what we've been doing. It isn't specifically Palestine related, though several of us are primarily focused on that issue. Anyway, I arrived early and so too did an older woman who's primary emphasis is on anti-war/peace activism and we sat down to talk before the others arrived.

I mentioned that I had been spending most of my time working on the one-state project and she took on a skeptical look. She asked, "In one democratic state, wouldn't the Palestinians quickly outnumber the Jews?" and I responded, "Probably." She then continued, "So if it is to be a majority Palestinian state, what's the point?" while her expression and tone made it clear that she meant what is the point from the Jewish perspective, that is, why would any Israeli Jew support this?

At this point I could have launched into my pitch, arguing that the only alternative that can lead to permanent peace is ethnic cleansing and our gamble that the majority of Israelis would refuse to accept this. However, at the time I just wasn't interested in trying to win her over to the perspective and didn't feel like trying to explain it to her from scratch.

So instead, I chose to answer by asking her a question: "Okay, in your opinion, 'what was the point' of supporting the struggle against Apartheid and supporting its fall?" She smiled. Whereas, seeing the potential of this response, I stuck to my guns - "No, I mean really, in your opinion what was the point in opposing Apartheid?" After realizing that I didn't intend the question rhetorically, but was actually asking her this, she responded by saying something along the lines of, "Because people who had been denied all their rights were now empowered". I promptly responded, "Well, there is your answer regarding one-state for Israel/Palestine, the point is the exact same." At this point some of our other friends appeared and we went to join them, though I could tell that my response did indeed work. Later in the meeting when the one-state topic came up again, she held her tongue and was obviously thinking about it a lot more as opposed to just writing it off as she had done previously.

All said this advocacy didn't stem from any great strategy, just my own laziness, however the more I think about it the more impressive the tactic becomes. When confronted with the very common question of "Why should I [we] support a one-state option?" The reply of "Why did you oppose Apartheid?" allows your audience to answer the question themselves in ways that mean the most to them, and once the answer to the latter question is in mind, you simply point out that it is also the answer to the former question as well. Thus, as opposed to being a salesman with a pitch, instead we allow people to use their own sense of right and justice to answer their own question in a way that resonates personally with them.

This tactic could applied to a large audience just as surely as to an individual. In that it provokes your audience into answering the question in a personal way, it accomplishes something that the best developed sales pitch will only effectively do for a percentage of the audience.