ABSTRACT
As Israel edged towards peace with the Palestinians in the late 1990s, old, highly controversial, and seemingly defunct issues were back on the table, such as the future status of Jerusalem and the question of the Palestinian refugees. The latter issue inspires two very different approaches. The Israeli view, based on an assessment of the 1947-49 period that ascribes primary responsibility for the Palestinian tragedy to an extremist and short-sighted Arab leadership, sees Palestinian wounds as primarily self-inflicted and so not in need of compensation. In contrast, Palestinian spokesmen justify their ‘right of return’ to the territory that is now part of the State of Israel (or for alternative compensation) by presenting themselves as victims of Jewish aggression in the late 1940s.
