[popsicesHoupe]

However, there is just question I have: I am not sure that is is acceptable for Israel to argue that the right of return of refugees would be demographic suicide, implying that it would destroy Israel and its people? This was not the case in South Africa when black people (by far the majority) were allowed to return to the country after being exiled and forced to live in appalling conditions in black homelands (Bantustans) - by the way, they also resorted to using arms and violent protest to bring about change, after decades of oppression. Also in Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor, Afghanistan, Rwanda refugees had the right to return.

I see two primary differences in the situations.

First is the mindset. While I am not overly familiar with the history of South African black resistance to injustice and oppression, I believe that it does not prominently feature calls for the total extermination of their oppressors - something which features prominently in the history of the Palestinian conflict with Israel. I cannot blame Israeli Jews for fearing for their lives were they to become a minority in Israel.

Second is the difference in the definitions of "refugee". Normally "refugee" refers only to people who were forced to flee their homes due to conflict or persecution. In the UN resolutions regarding the Palestinians, that has been expanded to include any descendants of those individuals - drastically increasing the number of people who would be given a right to "return". It also includes not just those who were forced out, but those who voluntarily left before the wars of 1948 and 1967 at the urging of Arab governments, with the expectation that they could return after Israel was defeated.

There is a fairly balanced Wikipedia article on the Palestinian Right of Return that presents the major arguments on both sides.

The reason I think this thread is so crucial to Christians is that the whole issue of Israel is so central to our faith: we need to find the truth in the whole situation. (emphasis added)

That is the part that is so very difficult. Saying there are different realities does not just apply to the way Israeli Jews and Palestinians see the situation, but also to the way the situation is presented to the outside world.

Effie said it was hard to see how anyone could defend the Israelis. The answer is really quite simple - the "reality" that defenders of the Israelis see through their news sources bears almost no resemblance to the "reality" that defenders of the Palestinians see through their news sources. Indeed, from the "reality" they are presented with, defenders of the Israelis have a hard time seeing how anyone can defend the Palestinians.

The first reality sees a protective fence to guard against terrorist attacks; the second sees an "apartheid wall". The first sees tremendous Israeli restraint in the face of unthinkable hatred and intense provocations; the second sees callous Israeli aggression against an oppressed and impoverished people. And most who buy into one "reality" can't understand how those buying into the other can be so blind.

There is an old saying that "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." When it comes to the Israelis and the Palestinians, however, everyone has their own facts. And figuring out which ones are really facts is a very difficult exercise.

In Christ,
Mike