According to Asad AbuKhalil , the overwhelming legal consensus that Israel is a state might be wrong (http://angryarab.blogspot.com). International law, he says, is not “a holy text that has one meaning and one interpretation only,” “international law is fluid,” and “international law can be contested and should be.” But, then, AbuKhalil must also be of the opinion that Israeli settlements might be legal; the West Bank and Gaza might be “disputed” not “occupied” territory; Israel might have the right to annex them; Palestinians might not have a right of self-determination; and Palestinians might not have a right of return. AbuKhalil fashions himself a radical defender of Palestinian rights; but he ends up making the case of Israel’s radical apologists. Les extremes se touchent.
It seems Alan Dershowitz beat Asad AbuKhalil to the punch:
These shifting boundaries pose an especially daunting problem in the context of Palestinian claims – which they have vowed to bring to the ICC –that it is a war crime to allow Israelis to live in occupied areas, when so many areas of alleged occupation are disputed, fluid and subject to future land swaps. Moreover resolution 242 of the Security Council contemplated that Israel would retain some – though how much was never decided – of the land it lawfully captured in the defensive war against Jordan in 1967. (http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Special-to-JPost-Alan-Dershowitz-makes-case-against-ICCs-investigation-of-Israel-388782?; emphases added)
(Thanks to JSW for this reference.)