That is top level sanitised nonsense of an opinion piece.
Most of it isn’t even true.
The 1936 Palestinian rebellion against the British did result in the Peel Commission (mis-spelled as Peal in the opinion piece), but the resultant proposed partition was not acceptable to either Palestinians (95%) or the Jewish population (5%). The split was heavily in favour of the Jewish population, giving them 20% of the most fertile, resource heavy lands and 80% of the land, including uninhabitable deserts, to the Palestinians.
The twentieth Zionist Congress resolved in August 1937 that: "the partition plan proposed by the Peel Commission is not to be accepted"
The whole plan was shelved by the British in 1938.
It was all suspended during WWII.
What followed was not “Arabs continuing their violent rebellion” but the Jewish insurgency against the British which included terrorist attacks from 1944-1948.
The UN the decided on the partition, but no one offered anything to anyone from Palestine because they’d already all rejected it. The British represented Palestine as the occupying authority and the US represented the Zionists who wished to immediately emigrate to the region to found Israel. The fate of Palestine was decided in New York City without any Jewish or Arab Palestinian included, behind all their backs.
The start of the Nakba in 1947 by proto-IDF militias (I call them proto-IDF because after the stand up of Israel many militias were renamed as brigades or battalions in IDF and subsumed into the new state) was because the Jewish insurgency rejected the UN partition done to them as much as the Palestinians rejected it as well.
The very not in depth article repeats the myth that the “Arabs” started all out war because Israel was stood up, which is propaganda. I have already gone over why the Arab league intervened following a quarter million refugees caused by hundreds of Palestinian villages being massacred/depopulated and partially occupied the parts of Palestine set aside by the UN for a Palestinian state. Israel managed a nice opportunistic land grab during the Nakba.
The 1967 six day war is related as Egypt seeking to destroy Israel when in fact it was Israel that pre-emptively (surprise attack) invaded Egypt. Again the Palestinians were offered nothing. The opinion piece related the reaction of the Arab League to Israel’s decision not to allow a Palestinian State as if it were rejection of the same.
The 2000 “rejection” skips over the Oslo Accords of 1993 in which the PLO and Israel had agreed to a two state solution to be implemented over the course of 5-6yrs including the withdrawal of illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. By 1999, this had not happened and Camp David was a last ditch attempt to rescue the two state solution. The PLO insisted on the Oslo Accords being honoured but Israel refused to remove their illegal settlements and in fact passed funding to build more while the negotiations were underway. Israel and the U.S. (acting as mediator) also moved out the date on which a Palestinian state would come into being by many more years. This was unacceptable (understandably) and both sides left with no agreement but both realising the Oslo Accords were defunct.
There was no rejection in 2008, because peace talks were in their infancy before being prematurely ended due to the Israeli PM stepping down. The PM, Olmert verbally offered a peace deal in which land swaps had been offered in return for leaving illegal settlements in place in West Bank but then refused to send the PA a written map showing what he was offering. Abbas said he would be happy to agree to a written plan with a map. But then Olmert was forced to resign in 2009 due to corruption charges and the whole deal was scrapped because his successor was Nethanyu who has been and still is fully, 100% opposed to any Palestinian state.