Interesting piece from the Jerusalem Post‘s bloggish on-line commentary from noted American attorney Alan Dershowitz. He notes that the ‘right of return’ for Palestinians really doesn’t make any practical sense for Israel. But, he argues, it may be necessary anyway. He notes that the Saudi peace plan retains ambiguity, leaving open room to find a negotiated settlement.

Definitely an interesting read and the comments cover a range of opinions on his opinion.

Double Standard Watch: If the shoe were on the other foot
ALAN DERSHOWITZ

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….