I don't dismiss any of that.

1) There are dozens of other major events that have happened in Palestine in the last 100 years that have not been part of this discussion. Not addressing every event does not equal "dismissing" them.

2) Every single "deal" you list prior to 1948 was a variation of "We (a colonial power) are going to take part of your land and give it to someone else, are you cool with that?" The answer was unsurprisingly "No." Every "deal" since 1948 has been a variation of "We are going to formalize the taking away of part of your land and giving it to someone else and/or taking away your autonomy in the land you will retain and giving it to the group we have given your land to. Are you cool with that?" The answer has been again unsurprisingly, "No."

Have you read those agreements? The basic problem is that the Palestinians don't accept part of their land being taken by force to create a new country.

All the "deals" after 1948 very specifically leave ultimate authority in the hands of the Israeli state, making whatever remained of Palestine forever subordinate to Israel.

I wasn't a big fan of Arafat, but I understand why he rejected the Oslo accords. The "terrorism" was a red herring.