The problem with the WB is that Israel now has the wolf by the ears. It wasn’t Israel’s fault that it grabbed the wolf in the first place - that’s the end result of a war of aggression against it, you may recall - but now the issue is whether it is right to keep on holding on to that wolf, let it go and suffer the consequences, adopt it as one of the household, or kill it for good.
Well, they tried letting the wolf go in Gaza. They did exactly what everone wants them to - cleared out the Israeli settlers, by force in some cases, packed up and left. How well did that little experiment turn out?
They are unlikely to kill the wolf - that would mean in essence ethnically cleansing the area of Palestinians who have always lived there. Call that the “Greece-Turkey” solution, or the “India-Pakistan” solution, because that is exactly what happened in those countries when faced with similar problems. The world has moved on since then, and it would hardly be considered moral or acceptable. World would not stand for it.
They will not adopt the wolf (the “one state” solution) for the obvious reason that they do not wish to commit collective suicide.
Thus, by default, they are left hanging onto the wolf, seemingly forever. Whether you wish to label them moral or immoral is irrelevant, since there is no obvious solution that anyone can come up with that is both moral and sensible. The one that people want to see succeed (including it should be said many Israelis) is a viable Palestinian state on the west bank. If this was possible I do believe the Israelis would make many concessions, including removing settlements, to achieve it: they have before in other situations (Siani, Gaza). But there is little evidence that it is possible, and the Gaza situation was not an encouraging portent.
While the continuing expansion of settlements is certainly regrettible it is not the cause of the problem - it is a symptom of a larger problem: the lack of options or “end game”.