The problem with these types of arguments is that they hinge on opinion. They also hinge on what is effect saying "palestine would be free and a state if they just agree to X regarding Israel taking their land. they should have just accepted land theft and any terms we say they should". It's complete nonsense. You say things like "Arab and Muslim leaders could not accept the concept of Jewish self-determination in the homeland of the Jewish people.", Self determination according to who? the people who are coincidentally taking the land? This whole argument expects everyone to believe in something Zionist made up. Its quite literally in the name "SELF DETERMINATION".

Regardless... all of these arguments only seek to muddy the key points about this conflict, and as I responded elsewhere, these are all base facts that really need be known.

1: A foreign power [British] obtained dominion over land to which they have NO relation through the action of war.

1a: Other foreign people [European Jews] (who also had no relation to the land, not their generation, their parents, grandparents, or even great grandparents) moved to the land and decided to create a state by obtaining sovereignty over the land from the aforementioned power.

1b: Everything after that has been conflict over native people [Palestinians] not being ok with their land being stolen and conflict from neighbors which took issue with various problems that came with a new colonial power next door.

It's very simple. Now, you can be completely dishonest and act like the british owning the land was completely ok and that it was rightfully theirs to do with what they wanted. But then everyone knows you're being dishonest because absolutely NO ONE thinks the british had rightful ownership over that land. For the exact same reason Colonialism is despised.