Whether the Israeli's decisions are reasonable is a completely separate topic, and I think the answer is less clear. Because Palestine has no bargaining chips,

Whether the Israeli's decisions are reasonable is a completely separate topic, and I think the answer is less clear. Because Palestine has no bargaining chips, a peace deal will involve Israel making unilateral concessions to Palestine, i.e. charity. Israel will relinquish territory where it currently is the de-facto owner, and agree to put new limits on its treatment of the Palestinians. Palestine will continue to receive a great deal of international aid which it could use to rebuild quite quickly if at peace, and they could easily choose to rebuild into a more credible threat to Israel. In exchange, Israel gets: Maybe improved relations with their Arab neighbors. (It could also make things worse; their neighbors may become more openly hostile if their "arm the Palestinians against Israel" strategy is taken off the table) Slightly improved international relations because the settlements Israel keeps would be legitimized. Maybe a reduction in terrorism (assuming the Palestinian peace-making faction retains enough power to enforce this). Maybe a reduction in defense costs (Israel still needs to maintain a large defense force because it is surrounded by potentially hostile countries). Is that trade worth it for Israel? Its not obvious, and depends on how likely you think the positive outcomes are. This is reflected in their domestic politics, Israelis have supported both doves and hawks over the past 60 years depending on how likely they think a positive peace is, which largely depended on Palestinian behavior. So while I don't think its worth assassinating people over, I do think reasonable people can come to different conclusions about the appropriateness of peace deals from the Israeli perspective.