I skimmed the article. I have read these arguments before, I've read some of Prof. Stone's defences of Israel and a number of subsequent critiques of his work. I'm not making a legal judgment against Israel - as I said I'm not yet familiar with international law. But it seems to me that for us, continuing to focus our efforts on international law is pointless. The legal consensus against Israel is quite overwhelming. More importantly the law is irrelevant. If the law required us to accept a Right of Return and withdraw to the green line with no population swap and entirely give away the Old City, which our critics argue it does, then the law is the end of us.
And my original reason for studying international law was exactly so that I could argue on Israel's behalf on this basis, though now I'm doubtful it can do any good.