1.'Legally, this strategy would mock all codified expectations of the governing treaty on statehood, the Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1934). ' The strategy of asking to be recognized as a state does not mock the said Convention, which dels with the rights and duties of states, not the rights to statehood of a people, for which other conventions and protocols apply, not least the unfinished UN duty to complete the arrangements of 1947. 2.'a Palestinian state would increase the risks of both mass-destruction terrorism and regional nuclear war.' I.e.A Palestinian state must not exist because it would increase the risk of nuclear war. No theory of legality or rights or duties here, but simply a wild apocayptic fantasy about the putative consequences of that statehood. 3.'Any new state of Palestine would be carved out of the still-living body of Israel.' The gentleman employs a metaphor of vivisection ('blood is abroad!', the Palestinians are like Dr Mengele!') which implies that 'Israel' already 'incorporates' the West Bank, which even in Israeli law, it has not. International law knows of no such incorporation. It is territory under belligerent occupation technically. Yet, geopolitical input is made by people who cannot get the most elementary facts of law and history straight. That is the only message your readers are given with this op-ed.
Hundreds protest by Tel Aviv club where 'rape video' was filmed calling for club's closure (Haaretz)
from the article: The unforeseen risks of Palestinian statehood