The Palestinians have indeed turned down multiple offers for statehood, such as:
The 1937 Peel Commission Partition
The 1947 UN Partition -- If you look at the WIKI page on this plan, you'll see "In 2011, Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas stated that the Arab rejection of the partition plan was a mistake he hoped to rectify."
The 2000 Camp David summit (reasons for impasse below from Wikipedia):
Both sides blamed the other for the failure of the talks: the Palestinians claiming they were offered little more than cantons of territory, and the Israelis claiming that they could not reasonably offer more territory.
According to The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East, "most of the criticism for [the] failure [of the 2000 Camp David Summit] was leveled at Arafat". Ehud Barak stated that he offered Arafat an eventual 91% of the West Bank, and all of the Gaza Strip, with some Palestinian control over Eastern Jerusalem neighborhoods as a capital of the new Palestinian state; in addition, all refugees could apply for compensation of property from an international fund to which Israel would contribute along with other countries. The Palestinians wanted the immediate withdrawal of the Israelis from the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, and only subsequently the Palestinian authority would dismantle the Palestinian terror organizations. The Israeli response as stated by Shlomo Ben-Ami, then Israel's Minister of Foreign Relations who participated in the talks, was "we can't accept the demand for a return to the borders of June 1967 as a pre-condition for the negotiation."
Clinton blamed Arafat after the failure of the talks, stating, "I regret that in 2000 Arafat missed the opportunity to bring that nation into being and pray for the day when the dreams of the Palestinian people for a state and a better life will be realized in a just and lasting peace." The failure to come to an agreement was widely attributed to Yasser Arafat, as he walked away from the table without making a concrete counter-offer and because Arafat did little to quell the series of Palestinian riots that began shortly after the summit. Arafat was also accused of scuttling the talks by Nabil Amr, a former minister in the Palestinian Authority.
and last but not least, Olmert's 2008 proposal.
The question I don't see backers of the Palestinians asking is this: Why didn't Egypt or Jordan create a state for them when they controlled the territories? They could have simply handed it over. Where was the outrage about this? They could also have integrated them into their own countries, rather than keeping them separate like an unwanted house guest. Again, no questions from the pro-Palestinian crowd.
And what is your great response to this? Asserting I'm wrong but not correcting me, and posting junk articles from the usual lefty circle of nitwits.
So why aren't YOU, mhgaffney O heroic one, telling this truth? Instead, you're recycling **** from lefty websites.
Thanks. I hadn't realized that the Arabs turned down several offers of statehood were a "Zionist lie."
The original Mandate included all of what is now Jordan being given to the Jews. (Refer to the San Remo Conference of 1920.) Even if the Jews were given ALL of the "occupied territories" today along with Israel, that still leaves them with far less land than given the Arabs and far less land originally promised them. Understand?
Any and all possible two-state deals were rejected by the Arabs.
No, 80% of Palestine was given to the Arabs, it's called "Jordan." Now they want the rest of the other 20%. The Arabs took Jordan all for themselves, in spite of the fact that "Arabs" were not the only indigenous people to the area; indeed, Jews and others have existed there before the Arabic language even existed. Further, Arab countries have mistreated and/or expelled their Jewish minorities, thus leaving them with little option other than migrating to Israel. Would you rather they simply drop off the face of the earth?