The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is so multi-faceted that it is possible for anyone to convincingly argue a case for either side. It is an exercise of determining what truth is, and from what angle it is to be seen, much like the parable of the blind men and the elephant - with each man touching and describing a different part of the animal's body.

Truth however is a relative concept. What is perceived true by one party may be false to another. As an analogy, let us ask ourselves if grey should be seen as half black or half white? Bar in the context of empirical science, there is no such thing as absolute truth, much less in realpolitik.

In any case, taking a hard stand on one angle of the truth in the Palestinian issue is perhaps the easier part, but to be objective is more difficult. There are too many emotional elements in the stew clamouring for recognition and legitimacy to one version of truth, like deep-seated prejudices based on 'nationalism' and religious differences, to mention but two.

Many a clash-of-civilisations alarmist believes the Holy Land will be the flashpoint of Armageddon as prophesied, the restive region a dynamite waiting to ignite. Judging by the regular incidents of tit-for-tat killing reported, the powder keg has in fact exploded.