Logic dictates that people of good will who are really interested in a peaceful resolution stop using the term “two-state solution.”
There are two main reasons for my position:
1. How on earth can any one predict if a proposal or idea or notion will be a solution before it has been tested?
It does not make sense.
Let’s call it a “two-state plan or idea or proposal.”
If you call it a solution, the uninformed and the malicious will argue that the only thing necessary for peace to break out is for Israel to contract to indefensible lines. And presto…peace!
2. A de facto Arab “Palestinian” state exists; it is called Gaza and is ruled by Hamas.
How successful has that solution been?

No; that would be a highly illegitimate and immoral act, based on the lie of “illegal occupation,” a lie that is easily refuted and was refuted concisely and brilliantly by the late Professor Julius Stone, among others.
His work, “Assault on the Law of Nations” is a classic.
Over the decades his position has been supported by a host of international lawyers such as Lauterpacht, Kontorovich, Riebenfeld .
It is ironic that latter-day settlers living comfortably on usurped land all over the world lecture the People of Israel about living in the ancestral home, which was internationally acknowledged and recognised in law as far back as 1922, the home that has never been renounced and in which the nation has continually had a presence despite horrendous adversity.
Peace.

Liat,

Thanks for the endorsement of my comments.

While I have received some flak over what I wrote, I stand by my comments, as they go to the heart of what passes for supposed Jewish leadership in this country, a leadership which maintains the head bowed, politically correct status quo for fear of rocking the boat.

It’s time that the constitution of various bodies be radically amended to accommodate an electoral process that allows for the nomination to senior positions to be open to the general community.

The current process of electing within deputies etc. needs to go.

Getting back to the Red Rattler rejection of Hillel:

1. The Sydney Theatre involved no doubt consider themselves to be under the category of the Arts rather than Politics. The Red Rattler Theatre Group in Marrickville, as a not for profit organisation, will have funding from somewhere. There will be conditions attached to that funding and the raison d’etre associated with it will be arts orientated, not political. So apart from complaint of discrimination to appropriate bodies, this aspect should also be examined and acted upon by formal complaint to the funding body. Let them act as a Theatre if they wish to be a Theatre, allowing access to all, or let them fold.

2. Art allows the opportunity to transcend politics, and religion; that’s its unique strength. The Red Rattler Team need reminding of this. If Hillel, or anyone else, want to stage a play the theme of which is Hamas/Fatah attacks on Israel (Day in the Life of an Israeli family in a kibbutz near Gaza, or Sderot et al) with reference to a Charter calling for Israel’s annihilation, then that should be allowed. Absolutely, it should. At the same time, a play with the theme of effects on a family in Gaza of the ongoing conflict should also be allowed. But – big but – only if it’s art, and that means no propaganda. There’s a huge difference and it’s easily discernible. What comes from the heart and soul of a person due to experience and affiliation, written and performed as artform is not propaganda. This is where Art is so different and has so much to offer, and the Red Rattler Team should know that.

3. I don’t know why some contributor posts appear to be searching for other possible reasons behind rejection of Hillel – it’s already been categorically stated as Red Rattler Team policy ‘not supporting colonialism/Zionism, nor the colonisation and occupation of Palestine’. And I also don’t think it matters how many theatres there are in Sydney who might be willing to do business with Hillel. It does matter that this particular one is exposed in the art world, and to the community at large, for what they are doing. Turn a blind eye and others will follow.

Hillel’s motto is “Wherever we stand, we stand with Israel”. The Red Rattler owners believe that the state of Israel is oppressing the Palestinian people, and therefore does not wish to facilitate functions by organisations supporting this position. This is nothing to do with racism, and everything to do with international politics. Perhaps Hillel could widen their support for not only Jewish students, but Palestinian ones as well?