Okay, so that's a totally different claim, then, isn't it?
You actually don't believe that the Palestinians deserve a state, you believe that the Palestinians should accept whatever is offered to them on the presumption that maybe it would be a foothold towards an actual state at some future point, depending on the magnanimity of Israel.
I think these are very obviously categorically different things. And, I think if this situation were one that you lived in, and you were offered this deal, you'd likewise reject it.
The point of this though is that it is unfair to say that the palestinians were offered statehood. You can say that they were offered a generous offer, or that it was the best offer they had been offered to that point and the wise strategic move would have been to have taken the offer. Arafat didn't sink the boat just to be a stick in the mud.
But you can't say that what was on the table constituted a dignified statehood with the necessary components that the concept of a state entails like right to return and control of their borders.
And this is only about the details of the actual offer. Another, massive and important aspect was Israel's behavior during these negotiations, specifically the furthering of settlement activities.