Simplifying it is the problem. That's like saying if a group who believes they are oppressed accepts what they perceive as oppression, no more conflict, and that's acceptable. It's only acceptable to the people on the other side, who are then not inconvenienced. It's just like the parent who tells a kid to stop crying or they'll give them something to cry about: It doesn't actually address or even attempt to address why the kid is crying; it just wants to shut them up for the parent's convenience. In neither case as presented here -- the perceived oppression nor the kid crying -- am I judging who is right or wrong.
One of the primary reason rebellions, revolutions, riots, insurrections, and other political or social violence occurs in the first place is because one group feels like doing nothing is a guarantee of their own demise, and doing anything is better than nothing. So your "no more war" scenario would mean Palestinians accept conditions they already feel are destroying them. Same with the January 6th incident: many of the people involved felt that accepting the result of the 2020 Presidential election would be destroying something they held dear about their country. In neither case as presented here -- Palestinians nor January 6th participants -- am I judging who is right or wrong.
I reject any narrative that sees one side as inherently, 100% good or evil, same with American politics.
