Of course anyone understands 100% that a Palestinian's primary goal will be to be back in one's own land (and, of course, solve the even much thornier issue of full rights while the invaders still effectively sit at the wheel.) No one in his right mind looks forward to more bloody fighting when a compromise can be reached. That much is obvious, no need to discuss.
What must be discussed, though, is the justice aspect (how neglected that has been is obvious from the fact that we have been exchanging correspondence with you for years and you never heard me, for example.) Is it so hard to make clear that justice (ie the satisfaction of a sense of fairness in the popular mind) is not the same thing as a compromise to make the best out of a bad hand?
While that consensual (if still wildly improbable) one-state is probably the best that can be achieved short of a way more horrible and more uncertain war than the one raging today, it is still a slap in the face of the Palestinian people because it ignores the self-determination right; it encourages further wars of aggression and conquest by establishing that anyone can get away with it, as long as you're protected by colonial powers; it is the total cancellation of international law from the treaty of Westphalia to the UN Charter.
All of that is of course outside the primary goal of any of the oppressed but I'll bet you anything that a huge lot of them will be boiling with resentment for a very, very long time if the former Herrenvolk are not a tiny minority. Lots of examples around in history and living memory.
Hard of hearing, Fincham? Who opposed human rights? It's just that you definitely sound like you're defending the human right to invade somebody else's land and squat on it unauthorized, among other things we mortals consider criminal in the extreme. Or, if we discount some of your exaggerated expression, at the very least a "human right" to have officially sanctioned "identity" collectives.
And I see a huge lot of horrible things that any recognition of "collective rights", back to Ottoman dark ages, will bring with it. Especially the continued invader domination on the life of all, which I won't bother to list in detail when lots of my betters have already done so. On another tack, reread "The Rights of Man" to familiarize yourself with what "secular and democratic" might mean.
Anyway, strict justice still requires the expulsion of all invaders and offspring if not authorized by the owners of the land. Anything short of that is not the implementing of human rights but gracious concessions, volunteered to people ready to collaborate.
As for who doesn't bend having to break, read this by good old La Fontaine (not a good translation by any standards, but conveys the idea):
Here, Bakr, I'm reading a bible:
All summarized here, go to the ref. for full text.
They warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males … And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones … And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses … And Moses was angry with the officers of the army, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, who came from the battle. And Moses said unto them, “Have you saved all the women alive? … kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves (Numbers 31:7-35)
Now the Israelites looked for the men who’d raped the Levite’s mistress, but the people of Benjamin wouldn’t give them up, and made war until twenty two thousand Israelites were dead; and the Israelites wept, saying “Lord, in return must I kill my brothers the Benjamites?” And they killed twenty five thousand Benjamites and set fire to their cities, until only six hundred men survived who’d run away to the wilderness. Then the Israelites were sorry, and said “How can they find wives when we’ve killed all their virgins!” So they considered, “Is there any tribe which hasn’t come to the Lord’s house?” Now the tribe of Jabeshgilead wasn’t there, so they sent an army to completely wipe them out and managed to capture four hundred virgins, which they gave to the Benjamites to made peace.
Then the elders said to the Benjamites, “But you’re still two hundred virgins short! However, there’s a yearly feast near Bethel; hide in the vineyards, and catch the daughters of Shiloh when they come out to dance. And if their fathers complain, say "You’re the guilty ones; just because we didn’t reserve your virgins during the war, you should have given them to us anyway.” Judges 20, 21
So Jephthah became their general; but his attempts to make peace failed, and he vowed “Lord, if you give me victory against Ammon, then whatever comes out of the door of my house when I return shall be offered to you in sacrifice”. And he conquered twenty Ammonite cities with much slaughter. When he returned to his house, his daughter came out to meet him, playing tambourines and dancing; she was his only child. He cried “Alas, my daughter! I’ve promised you to the Lord!” And she said, “My father, do to me whatever you’ve promised; but first let me go to the mountains with my friends, that I may mourn the fact that I must die a virgin.” “Go,” said Jephthah. And she went off with her friends, and wept for her virginity on the mountains. And after two months she returned to her father, who offered her to the Lord as a burnt offering. And she was still a virgin. Judges 11
Many, many more there.
So now we know the moral compass. It is exactly the moral compass that makes sense for any Zionist.