Question regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Hello Rabbi Michi, I have a question regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I hope I can formulate it well.
I apologize for the length, but I tried to be as detailed and clear as possible. Although it may seem like there is some artificial chatter here that is pursuing a predetermined goal, the question was written from a completely honest place, and after thinking about things.
I will note in advance that these words were written from the perspective of a right-wing person or at least an Israeli patriot.
 
 
As of today, Israel controls the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria, but does not give them the right to choose. Apparently, theoretically, if we neutralize security issues for a moment, we have two options:
Give Palestinians the right to vote, (bi-national state),
Or give them their own state (two states for two peoples)
Most of us are probably not interested in giving up the idea of ​​a Jewish state, so the only option left is the two-state solution.
In reality, a Palestinian state would probably endanger us, and therefore it is completely legitimate to oppose one. But all this opposition should be based on practical, not ideological, considerations. That is, it should ostensibly be clear that if the Palestinians were Swedes, we would be obligated to give them a state, and the problem is more technical than principled. The answer to this theoretical question (of Palestinians becoming Swedes) ostensibly defines the difference between the security and ideological right.
One could try to argue that the action doesn’t matter, and whatever the argument, the result is the same. But I see no reason why things should be equal. The settlement enterprise is ostensibly an ultimate and very significant example that is relevant as a counterpoint between the two arguments, but even if we manage to explain this matter with a security argument, there is no reason why it will always be true. For the sake of the example, let’s assume that 1,000 decisions are made in a year regarding the territories, and it is reasonable to assume that in at least a quarter of them, the motives are influential. Over time, very significant differences emerge between the strategy of a security right and an ideological right.
Since Israeli activities regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are actions with enormous moral implications (control over another people, the death of many people, etc.), the difference between the security right and the ideological right becomes extremely significant. On the face of it, I find no legitimate justification for the ideological right. The source of the ideological right is religious and there is no reason why religious belief should allow one people to control another people with all the consequences that entails.
In today’s Israeli reality, the influence of the ideological right is becoming more and more significant. By and large, the absolute majority of the national religious public holds it. Almost every national religious will declare that he holds the ideology of the complete Land of Israel and at the same time he will clearly oppose giving the right to vote to the residents of the territories. (If I understand correctly, historically the people who supported the complete Land of Israel intended a single state with equal rights for everyone, which at the time would have been possible if European Jews had immigrated to the country).
I’ve noticed that the vast majority of people don’t make this distinction, and treat the entire right as a security position. For example, the national religious opposition to Oslo and disengagement stemmed from religious motives (and naturally, since this is their position, they also held to the security arguments, but even without them the majority would have opposed), and yet people see the failure of these moves as justification for Smotrich’s path, for example.
A situation has arisen in which, following the growing influence of this public, the State of Israel can no longer claim to be clean-handed and to conduct itself purely with regard to the Palestinians. I try to imagine myself as a Palestinian boy. Let’s say I am a decent and educated person with liberal values. So I hate Hamas and strongly oppose jihad. Let’s say I also understand that the overall conduct of the Jews regarding the conflict is much more moral than the Palestinians. I also understand that if we (the Palestinians) knew how to take advantage of opportunities, we would already have a state. . Because I am decent and liberal, I will also try to strengthen the moderate forces, and recognize our central part in the current situation. But I also know that at the moment, Israel’s opposition to a Palestinian state stems from a religious imperative of the Jews, and Israel does not at all strive to give us a state. It is building settlements and trying to annex the territories, and in fact my situation as a subject without rights is enough in the first place for them, which would make me oppose attacks against soldiers at least. Why is this different from the undergrounds that tried to expel the British.
 
After this long introduction, my questions are:

1. Do you agree that the ideology of a complete Land of Israel without giving rights to the Palestinians is illegitimate (a complete Land of Israel as an ideology, not as a technical problem).
2. Why is it unjustified for that decent and liberal Palestinian to support certain attacks against soldiers?
3. Does this issue bother you? Let’s say we are now in a period when we need to make very significant decisions regarding Gaza, and I think it is clear that Smotrich and Ben Gvir want to promote settlement in Gaza for religious reasons. That is to say, the decisions that are being made now about what to do there involve religious motives. I am interested in how you relate to such decision-making. I am trying to think about what I would do if I were a soldier who had to enter Gaza, and I know that a significant part of the decision-making that led me to risk my life was tainted by the national religious public’s dream of a complete Land of Israel. It seems to me very clear that there will be a significant difference in the steps that Israel will take whether the goal is to deal with the security threat of Hamas, or whether we have another and central goal of settling there. Again, I am not talking about a specific decision that can be debated, but about a large number of decisions.
4. Why don’t you deal with these issues? For some reason, when talking about the problems of the national religious public, people avoid mentioning this issue, even though its consequences are extremely extreme. In essence, a situation has been created in which, following the ideology of this public, the State of Israel cannot claim pure and justified independence. If I try to defend Israel’s policy in the world, I will not have a good answer to our rule over the Palestinian people. I can of course rightly say that if the Palestinians had not endangered us, they would have had a state long ago, but I would be lying if I said that for us this is our goal. In the current situation, we are not striving for a whole at all, and in fact see the current situation as a kind of beginning. And again, I repeat, this is not just a theoretical matter, but a large part of the decisions that are made today, with all the moral consequences that stem from them, are made because of that ideology.

 
Sorry for the length, hope that’s okay.
And thank you anyway.
Daniel