Let me flesh it out for you: https://youtu.be/76NytvQAIs0
As usual you are incapable of fleshing anything out, incapable of even asking the most basic questions of the propaganda that you digest and nor does the patronising video that you linked flesh anything out. It manages, if anything, to dumb down even further your already dumb take.
To take the explanation, or fleshing out if you prefer
, of the first of these supposed "five offers of a state" in 1936 given in the childishly patronising video that you posted;
According to our narrator(highlighted in red with my comment added below in black), speaking as if he is addressing a 8/9 year old;
Script:
If Israel just allowed the Palestinians to have a state of their own, there would be peace in the Middle East, right? That’s what you hear from UN ambassadors, European diplomats and most college professors.
But what if I told you that Israel has already offered the Palestinians a state of their own - and not just once, but on five separate occasions?
Don’t believe me?
Let’s review the record. 1. It isn't within Israel's gift to offer Palestine a state.
2. He follows this falsehood with the strawman made up of un-named UN ambassadors, diplomats and college professors who apparently claim that there would be peace if Israel allowed this state.
Starts off with a lie as its basic premise and predictably goes downhill after that, but yeah, let's "review the record" of these kind Israeli offers
After the breakup of the Ottoman Empire following World War I, Britain took control of most of the Middle East, including the area that constitutes modern Israel.
Seventeen years later, in 1936, the Arabs rebelled against the British, and against their Jewish neighbors.
The British formed a task force – the Peel Commission – to study the cause of the rebellion. The commission concluded that the reason for the violence was that two peoples – Jews and Arabs – wanted to govern the same land.
This shows an embarrassingly ill informed, biased and childish understanding that is just laughable. Why and how were the British in control of Palestine? How can this be mentioned without giving the context of the infamous 1917 "Balfour Agreement" between the UK government and Zionist, Jewish banker Lord Walter Rothschild? Who were these Jewish neighbours? Who were the Irgun? the Haganah? The Balfour Agreement and other dirty deals the UK did with the Zionist bankers were the cause of the Peel Commission to be called. It was Zionists who introduced terror to Palestine. The Arab rebellion was a result of these dirty deals and the introduction of violent Ashkenazi European Jewish Zionists as a direct consequence of UK Foreign Secretary, Lord Balfour and Lord Rothschilds agreement. All of this important historical context is simply ignored in the "Janet and John" type commentary which offers such glib remarks as,
"two peoples – Jews and Arabs – wanted to govern the same land. " offered by, "David Brog, Executive Director of the Maccabee Task Force". Neither he, nor you, consider and don't even know the important historical context around these lies about supposed offers of a state to the Palestinians and how they fit into the 20th century history of the region.
The answer, the Peel Commission concluded, would be to create two independent states – one for the Jews, and one for the Arabs. A two-state solution. The suggested split was heavily in favor of the Arabs. The British offered them 80 percent of the disputed territory; the Jews, the remaining 20 percent. Yet, despite the tiny size of their proposed state, the Jews voted to accept this offer. But the Arabs rejected it and resumed their violent rebellion. Rejection number one. A predictably childish explanation to conclude our "fleshed out" version of the Palestinian rejection of the first offer, with an outright lie tagged on at the end because the truth destroys the entire premise.
"The Jews voted to accept this offer". If this claim is untrue(spoiler alert-it is) then the entire premise of the argument is falsified; that being that the Zionists have always been willing to share the land but the Arabs are agreement incapable. Below is the Jewish reaction, from wiki;
"On 20 August 1937, the Twentieth Zionist Congress expressed that, at the time of the Balfour Declaration, it was understood that the Jewish National Home was to be established in the whole of historic Palestine, including Trans-Jordan, and that inherent in the Declaration was the possibility of the evolution of Palestine into a Jewish State.[36]
While some factions at the Congress supported the Peel Report, arguing that later the borders could be adjusted, others opposed the proposal because the Jewish State would be too small.
The Congress decided to reject the specific borders recommended by the Peel Commission, but empowered its executive to negotiate a more favorable plan for a Jewish State in Palestine"
Or, in plain English Steve, the Zionists also rejected the "Peel Commission" recommendations. In red is the script, verbatim, of the first one and a half minutes of the Janet and John video that you posted. 1 min 30 seconds of ill informed, childish drivel ending in an outright lie. In the remaining 4 minutes, it got no better. Do you really think that your claim of 5 offers is "fleshed out" by such a shallow offering?
