The Palestinians were the ones who originally pushed for the two-state solution. It took them years to convince the Israelis to even come to the negotiating table, which finally happened in 1993.

The offer made to Arafat was awful for many reasons that are well known, and that I won't go over here (but to give you an exanple, the proposal said that the Palestinians would have no military, and that the Israeli military would have the right to enter Palestine whenever it wanted, meaning that Palestine would not have real sovereignty).

> He walked away without responding.

Actually, he told the Israelis that the offer was a very bitter pill to swallow, and that he would have to show it to the Palestinian national council before he could accept it. Then, the PLO came back a few months later to negotiate further in Taba. The Israelis eventually broke off negotiations, because the ruling party was about to lose the election to a party that opposed the two-state solution.

> Typically this is hidden references to the "right of return".

It always amazes me how Israelis say the Palestinian right of return is so awful, absurd, outlandish, unacceptable, etc., when the entire founding ideology of the state of Israel is that the Jews have a right of return from 2000 years ago.

You're thinking of different negotiations.

Right of return = total Palestinian victory in the next election, which at this point probably means genocide of the Jews.

They hide it because it a known deal-killer.

That's what white South Africans said about giving black people the right to vote. It turned out to be wrong.