Israel has been the repeated victim of aggression since the time it was re-established, but has been able to fight off would-be oppressors. Israel, like any other sovereign state, has an inherent right of self-defense.

Moreover, Israel's government should avoid decisions that legitimize the Hamas terrorist group. Hamas knows exactly what it must do per the Madrid Quartet's terms if it is to play a role in any kind of peace framework. To date, Hamas has rejected those terms.

Israel is not required to adopt the 1967 borders. Those borders were based on temporary armistice lines. The final boundaries will be derived out of negotiations. The pre-1967 war boundaries will guide decisionmaking, but those boundaries will not become the permanent borders given Israel's right to "secure" boundaries. Some adjustments will be necessary.

The principle of compensation of refugees will likely be non-controversial. The amount will be a different matter. Given present economic realities, it is plausible that the total fund could amount to less than the $30 billion that had been stipulated in the Clinton parameters that Yasser Arafat refused to accept.

The refugees will "return" to the region in general, but only in the areas that will comprise the new Palestinian state. They will not move to Israel.

Requiring that Israel admit the Palestinian refugees and all of their descendants would be a deal-breaker. The demographic change would transform Israel into a Jewish minority state and effectively allow the Palestinians to bring an end to Israel's existence. That development would be at odds with the UN's original intent in devising the partition plan for the region. Furthermore, no state can reasonably be expected to consent to its own demise. Israel will be no exception.