Hi,
I was thinking about what you said.
In a word, you were saying that if Israel's enemies take every necessary step to ensure Israel's safety in a permanent manner, then a two-states solution(, including giving back the "illegal" settlements,) could be envisioned, that's a unilateral loss enabled by the law of the strongest. An inversed unilateral loss, in favor of the pro-palestinians, would see them taking back the holy lands. And a balanced exchange would have those who take(, western countries,) give something back(, of equal value,) in exchange.
At least expressed like that the first unilateral loss doesn't seem more moral than the second one, but it is true that this loss can be more or less important(, e.g., disparition of Palestine, or a two-state solution, or only a jewish territory in a small part of the current israeli territory). Yet the second choice could(should?) also be seen as the most moral of the three, when it takes the year 1900 as a baseline for saying that Israel's destruction is a neutral gain/loss for both sides(, instead of a unilateral gain/loss for one of them if we take the year 1960 as a baseline).
I'm in favor of making a trade by giving something worthwhile in exchange of the holy lands, but as you pointed out this is unrealistic, so let the strongest prevail i guess.
"I do agree that palestinians could get back the new settlements of the last decades and end any future palestinian persecution if they&'their allies' recognise Israel" is what i wanted to add, not sure that we would have followed the path of least resistance if the roles were reversed, but as you said giving them something of equal value in exchange is out of question

It's just an addition, please don't feel any obligation to answer, and thanks for the chat