That's fair. I am tired of being told that whatever Israel does in the name of "security" is okay.
Since nobody has better answers I don't feel that criticism is appropriate. It's always the faith-based belief that there must be a better answer--the lack of anyone suggesting one should be recognized as significant.
Who gets to decide which answer is the better one?
Yitzhak Rabin believed a Two State solution that would ensure Israel's continuation as a Jewish State for the Jewish people was a better answer than a One State solution in which non-Jews could conceivably become a majority, or a Rogue State that would be a pariah among nations.
Benjamin Netanyahu believes a Jewish State encompassing all of Eretz Israel, with non-Jews having been expelled or confined to ghettos and internment centers, is better.
One of the posters here believes "Gaza should be dealt with as Carthage was dealt with by Rome"; he thinks genocide and the enslavement of survivors is better than either Rabin's or Netanyahu's vision.
You apparently think using nuclear weapons to murder millions in Amman and Damascus is better than allowing non-Jewish refugees to return to their former places of residence inside Israel because it's too dangerous for Jews to live among non-Jews, especially as a potential minority in a century or two, unless it's in the West Bank as an actual minority today, in which case it's perfectly fine.
The people currently active in Jewish Voice for Peace think it's better to dismantle institutional power that discriminates on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, or any of the other characteristics bigots use to justify injustice, and replace it with a more egalitarian system of organization that respects and defends human rights.
Just because you like your 'better' better, doesn't mean someone else's 'better' isn't better than yours.