""I cannot help feeling even so, however, that the small but intransigent Palestinian element, their equivalent of those erstwhile Stern & Irgun perpetrators, would maintain even after statehood their influence, and their determination to bring about Israel's complete destruction; and most probably would, as Begin's lot were not, be the first government elected for the new state. Statehood would surely constitute, to put it quite mildly, a most extreme danger to Israel, and to the peace of the area and the world?""
It is worth pointing out, I think, that there is no real evidence that the authors of the rocket attacks have any more political influence than, for example the "Real IRA" in Northern Ireland, and it is also a fact that Hamas only controls the Gaza strip, and as yet their writ doesn't run in the whole of Palestine.
IMHO it is very unlikely that Hamas will ever control the whole country, and statehood confers both benefits and responsibilities.
Palestine as it is now really has little to lose in its efforts to survive. As a recognised state its actions would be much more severely circumscribed by the likelihood of sanctions.
I see more benefits than problems in recognising it as a sovereign state, and the greatest,again IMHO, would be the prevention of further provocative acts by the IDF.
The simplest and best way to stop the rockets is to remove any reason or excuse for their continuation.
After all, Israel too would feel the benefit of THAT.