I'm sure at the time people had good arguments for staying neutral - they/the public support for them lost out to pro-war people, so what I mean is, hard relative to 'flipping' the precedent of the "losing side of the argument" to winning amongst decision makers

However, even though Italy got shafted at Versailles, better to be at the peace table at all rather than at the mercy of the committee...

Neutral seems more likely than the central powers - it doesn't take a military genius to realize you're better off fighting the Austrians than the French, all else being equal.

(Edit: and political pressure was more on taking places like Trent/Trieste, not necessarily places like Savoy back from the French. I think that has more to do with Austria being weaker/perceived as easier to get those territories, but still)

Neutral would probably have been the better option in the long long term - does anyone for instance think the Netherlands made the wrong move not joining? But I agree that it would be very hard in the moment to argue for neutrality