Let's read about it. What can you bring to the discussion that is unbiased? Or, perhaps bring something that is known to be biased and we can read it and discuss it granting that it's biased.
It has nothing to do with Netanyahu. Those were offered while Ben Gurion and Rabin were prime ministers. In both instances the Palestians would not recongize Israel as a state nor roll back their aspirations to push all the Jews into the sea. Lovely, right?
The Ottomans ruled with an iron fist. The League of Nations / UN comes in and tries to institute something else. Share the land? Israel says yes, the Palestinians and the Arab nations? Nope. If the "might=right" mentality pre UN was maintained, then Israel has won the right to rule that land. But, they've tried repeatedly to work with their neighbors.
The Palestinians ( and actually the surrounding arab nations ) had their chance, Multiple chances. The terrorism is not going to stop. Yes, it was a mistake to stop fighting the war for independence before obtaining a peace treaty that firmly and undeniably established defensible borders.
Are you proposing to repeat the same mistake again and again? The fighting should end prematurely, before a defensiblle border has been established by a peace treaty? That is only going to lead to more and more conflict. It needs to be finished. And I don't think Israel should stop, until its finished.
Defensible borders, undeniably established, in writing, via a treaty with the Palestinians. If they won't agree, then push them into Jordan. They attacked first. They made a huge mistake attacking the way they did. That's it. It's war.