"Here’s what I want: I want a two-state solution with Israel returning to its pre-1967 borders, which would have the little benefit of no longer being a violation of international law, laws Israel is bound by treaty agreement to adhere to and which explicitly outlaw the annexation of foreign land through military conquest."

What treaties are you talking about? Where do you get the idea that Israel has "annexed" the West Bank? Just a stab in the dark, but one treaty I know of is SCR 242, which says that Israel will give up territory (it doesn't say "all the territory") in the West Bank in return for peace. So, why is Israel "in violation" and Palestinians are not?

The above is how you get from discussing international politics to discussing morality. Since your discussion only condemns Israel for violating international law, why is it wrong to assume that you favor the Palestinians?

You say your little solution has been "blocked at every turn by the Israeli government and its patrons in the United Nations security council, the United States" even though it has the support of all the right-thinking people. But the fact is that it hasn't been blocked by them. In fact, it was openly offered to them in the 2000 Camp David talks. It has been blocked by the Palestinians—unless you'd demand open borders with a state with openly genocidal intentions against Israel. If there were a group like Hamas in some part of LA, I don't think you'd be demanding that they have full communications with the rest of the city, since they would use this to kill people in LA.