My problem is that while they fit the literal definition of compromise, they don't really achieve much. Those are barely ceasefires, and not much progress. So compromise without friendly relations does exist, it just really really sucks. The spirit of my criticism still stands.

> My problem is that while they fit the literal definition of compromise, they don't really achieve much.

Compared to what? The OP's contention was that "Friendly relations is a prerequisite for compromise". I proved that false. You're now changing the subject.

> So compromise without friendly relations does exist, it just really really sucks.

So the wives of the doomed Jewish men getting back their husbands really, really sucked? You need to learn a bit of history -- it's replete with valuable compromises between antagonistic parties.