1) there is a negotiated peace settlement between the combatants because they have reached a military standstill and neither side wants to risk losing. This "peace" can be tenuous. War may break out again if one or the other side is unable or refuses to enforce the peace.
2) there is a negotiated peace settlement in which the side that appeared to have been winning pretty much dictates the terms. Again, usually the side perceived as being closer to winning will dictate terms that reduce the fear that the peace will not be enforced. Still, the good faith of both parties determines whether the peace holds.
3) one side wins; the other loses. The identities of the winner and also of the loser are very clear. The winner dictates the terms of the peace treaty, may set new geographical boundaries an may occupy the defeated nation's lands. Think WWII.
The Israeli/Palestine dispute will eventually end. If it is true that Israel is losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the important leaders in the world, then I suspect that Israel is determined to make sure that number 3 is the way the war ends.
I think Palestine would be wise to try for a negotiated peace settlement under No. 2 if it possibly can.
I always have hope for peace. I lived in the Alsace-Lorraine as a student. When we were there the country was considered to be a part of France, but the population was divided in that some spoke French and identified as French, and some spoke German. Alsace is still a part of France. I seriously doubt that anyone in Germany would lay claim to Alsace. Hundreds of years they fought.
Surely, if France and Germany can make peace with regard to Alsace, Palestine and Israel can agree on peace. They need to do it. Who cares who is right or who is wrong when so many lives are at stakes. Both sides need to negotiate in earnest. Right now, Israel has over the years "won." But peace is very much in Israel's interests. I suspect it is just a matter of the terms for Israel.
= new reply since forum marked as read