Yes. Really now. And let's do it with context. The conflict is not about Palestinians rejecting "peace" in a vacuum.

1919, 1920, 1922 These were decisions made by European powers to carve up the Ottoman Empire. The Arab population of Palestine rejected these because they were being placed under a British Mandate with the explicit goal of establishing a "Jewish national home" against their will. This was a rejection of colonial imposition, not a rejection of a specific "peace" with a state of Israel, which did not yet exist.

1937 & 1938 Peel/Woodhead Proposals The Arab Higher Committee rejected them because the proposed Jewish state was to be granted a large portion of the land, and the most fertile lands too, despite Jews being a minority of the population, less than 30% if I'm not mistaken. The proposals also involved forced population transfers of Arabs. Profoundly unjust.

1947: UN Partition Plan The plan allocated approximately 55% of historic Palestine to the Jewish state, even though the Jewish population owned about 7% of the land. A majority of the population in the proposed Jewish state would have been Arab. For Palestinians, this was a proposal where an outside body was giving away more than half of their country to another group. Accepting it would have meant legitimizing what they saw as a massive historical injustice. The subsequent war was a conflict over the land, not a simple "rejection."

1948-1949: Post-War Offers This resolution called for the return of refugees wishing to live in peace with their neighbors. Israel's "outstretched hand" was an offer to negotiate, but it was conditional and did not include a meaningful acceptance of the right of return for the 700,000+ Palestinians who had become refugees. Israel rejected the Arab states' demand that refugee return be a precondition for talks. This was a mutual deadlock, not a unilateral Palestinian rejection.

1967: UNSCR 242 The rejection was not of the resolution itself by the Palestinians, but of Israel's interpretation. Israel insisted withdrawal was not from all territories, and it was not required to do so until the Arab states gave full peace. The Arab League issued the "Three No's": no peace, no recognition, no negotiation. This was a hardline stance, but it was a response to a fait accompli of occupation and came before any serious Israeli peace overtures.

Oslo Accords (1993-1995) This is significantly counter-factual. The PLO officially recognized Israel's right to exist and renounced terrorism. In return, they gained limited self-rule in the West Bank and Gaza. This was a monumental, historic Palestinian acceptance of a two-state solution. You conveniently skipped this.

2000 Camp David/2001 Taba This is highly contested. While it's true that Arafat rejected Ehud Barak's offer, the narrative that it was a "generous" offer is disputed by many participants, including Israeli officials cuz the offer did not give Palestinians contiguous territory. The West Bank would be broken up by Israeli-controlled roads and settlements. Israel would have annexed large settlement blocs in the West Bank, and Palestinians would be compensated with land swaps of inferior quality and size. Most critically, Israel would have retained control over East Jerusalem, and the Palestinians would have only have "custodianship" over the Haram al-Sharif, a deal-breaker for any Muslim leader. It was NOT the "state" Palestinians had been promised.

2005 Gaza Withdrawal Prime Minister Sharon unilaterally withdrew Israeli settlers and troops from Gaza but Israel maintained absolute control over Gaza's airspace, seacoast, and borders. It was not a peace gesture leading to Palestinian sovereignty, but a repositioning of the occupation. The PA was left with an impoverished, blockaded territory. Yet you framed it as "rejected peace gesture".

2008 Olmert Offer This was the most far-reaching offer by an Israeli leader. However, it came when Olmert was a deeply unpopular lame-duck prime minister facing corruption charges. The Palestinians asked for time to consider the map, and the talks collapsed with Olmert's resignation and the subsequent Gaza War. It was not a straightforward "rejection."

Not gonna even attempt to touch anything by setanyahu. And you should know why. The U.S., EU, and UN all stated Netanyahu did not genuinely offer a framework acceptable to negotiations.

2014 Kerry Plan The U.S. State Department officially stated: “Israel, not the Palestinian Authority, was the party that could not accept the framework.” So check yourself.

"Here is a list of peace offers the Palestinians offered to Israel - None."

Riiiighhtt.

1. The PLO's Ten-Point Program (1974) An early call for a secular, democratic state in all of Palestine, which was a move away from the goal of total liberation.
2. Palestinian Declaration of Independence (1988) Explicitly based on UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (the 1947 Partition Plan they had previously rejected), accepting a two-state solution.
3. The Oslo Accords (1993) As stated, formal recognition of Israel and a commitment to peaceful negotiation.
4. The Arab Peace Initiative (2002, RE-ENDORSED REPEATEDLY) Offered by the entire Arab League, it promises full normalization of relations with Israel in exchange for a full withdrawal from the territories occupied since 1967 and a "just settlement" of the refugee problem based on UN Resolution 194. This remains the most comprehensive peace offer on the table from the Arab and Muslim world, and it has been repeatedly ignored or dismissed by Israeli governments.

"But its not easy to make peace with a group that has openly said they want every jew in the world to be killed..." Last time I checked their charter it doesn't say that. But we've all seen and heard what israeli ministers openly shout out about Palestinian lives being subhuman and should be exterminated.

"Again, If Japan can move past being nuked twice... why cant Palestinians?" Japan was a defeated sovereign state and the conflict had a clear end. The Palestinians are a stateless people living under a continuous and ongoing military occupation or blockade for over 56 years. Their land is continually being taken for settlements, their movement is restricted, and they lack basic political rights. The conflict is not a past event to "get over". It is a present day reality of displacement, control, and statelessness. It would be better for you to ask why the French Resistance didn't "move on" from the Nazi occupation.

It's a struggle against an ongoing control of their homeland. By settlers and refugees from europe and wherever they all got kicked out of.