I don't agree with your analogy at all and there are some glaring omissions, but I appreciate your perspective and sharing this. The idea of insisting on the maxim to force negotiation and compromise is an interesting one. People can be critical of it, and even use it against you as proof of not being sincere about a deal- however it is a fairly standard strategy in politics and business. For if you start at the minimum that you would accept, the other side would try and reduce that further.

For refugees, your quotes from the UN have a strong caveat - return of refugees who can live in peace with their neighbours- how to qualify that to Israel's security satisfaction? Certainly just throwing some money at refugees as compensation would be infinitely easier and more palatable. All the rest was pretty much covered in Olmert's proposal in 2008.