Recently, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced that, as a matter of deep principle, he would never accept a right of return by Palestinian refugees and their descendants. His argument was simple: the Palestinians, aided by the surrounding Arab countries, started a war against the new state of Israel in an effort to destroy it; had they instead accepted the partition-the two-state solution-Israel would have accepted the presence of significant numbers of Palestinians in the new Jewish state. But once the Palestinians started a genocidal war, the inevitable consequence was the creation of refugees. Even if some were in fact forced to leave by Israeli military commanders, such actions were in response to the attack by the Palestinians.

Olmert is absolutely right as a matter of principle. The best proof of the correctness of his view is to imagine what would be happening today if the shoe were on the other foot. Imagine if the Palestinians had won and many Israelis had been forced to leave, while others left of their own volition or as the result of fear. Now imagine those Israelis seeking a right of return, either in the immediate aftermath of the war or sixty years later. It is inconceivable that a Palestinian state would grant Jewish refugees a right of return. Certainly that would be true if the number of Israeli refugees and their descendants threatened to outnumber the Palestinian population. How can a right of return go only one way? Has Yemen offered its Jewish refugee population any right of return or compensation? Has Egypt? Has Iran? Has Iraq? Has Syria? Of course not.

Having concluded that Olmert was absolutely right as a matter of principle, he may have been wrong as a matter of tactics. The Palestinian narrative, whether factually correct or incorrect, is a reality in the minds of most Palestinians. Earlier Israeli Prime Ministers recognized that, and were prepared to compromise principle for a pragmatic peace. They indicated a willingness to accept some symbolic right of return coupled with compensation.

There is a comparable issue of principle on the West Bank. Clearly, Jews have a principled claim to continuing to live in Hebron, the birthplace of biblical Judaism, but even Prime Minister Olmert is prepared to compromise that principle in the interest of a pragmatic peace. I hope he will also be open to a pragmatic compromise with regard to the right of return, if such a compromise were necessary to bring about a real peace.

This issue is of great importance in light of the Saudi Peace Plan, which is ambiguous on the issue of refugees, demanding a just resolution, but not specifying the details of such a resolution.