A distinction without a difference. They want improved security, and they think settlements give them that. QED

Not at all. For example, I believe that requiring everyone to show their "papers" in order to travel around my area would improve security, but I vehemently oppose doing that. Believing a policy would have an effect - even a desired effect - does not mean that people would support that policy, because they might not be willing to accept all the other potential effects.

Even people who oppose settlements as unjust or unfair or violating international law might still respond that they improve Israel's security.

Another approach is to pull-back to the legal borders, stop killing civilians, and accept that for a generation or so there will be occasional attacks. You can't just expect to flip a switch and change attitudes. You need a generation of Palestinians being raised alongside Jews, working with Jews, building lives alongside Jews.

The expectation is that if a Palestinian state were created, it would be taken over by Hamas - just as Gaza was. That's the other lesson of Iraq and Afghanistan - you can try to install a government that's acceptable to the foreign powers that establish it, but it won't last for much longer than those foreign powers prop it up.

What does a Hamas-controlled school system teach the next generation of Palestinians about Israel and Jews? And why expect that attacks on Israel would be "occasional"? You end up in exactly the same place that Israel is today, except Hamas will be better armed and supplied and will have control of both the West Bank and Gaza.

Back in the day, there was some hope that Fatah's vision of a secular Palestinian government might take hold in a new Palestinian state, even if a democratic or pluralistic one seemed far fetched. With the fall of Iraq (and the elimination of the regional check it provided against Iran) and the rise of Hamas, that's no longer an especially likely outcome.

What about turning it on Iran?

It would result in all-out regional war - a horrible outcome for everyone, including Israel. No one wants the current "proxy war" to erupt into an actual conflict, which would involve Lebanon and Syria sending battalions into northern Israel, backed by the Iranian air force (such as it is) and their more potent missile capabilities.

Assassinating the ruling clerics isn't necessarily going to have the hoped-for effect: while it might throw the country into chaos and civil war, it's far more likely to have the opposite effect of allowing the ruling regime to tighten their grip on the country as they "rally 'round the flag" (much as the 10/7 attacks ended up helping an otherwise flailing Netanyahu gain firmer footing).