They've been undermining a two-state solution since Bibi has been in office
That's because Israel is totally sick and tired of being played the fool and lied to.
August 2000 I believe was the last time Israel would ever take the Palestinians and their Arab overlords seriously on wanting a peace agreement or peace at all. I do not care how much you think Israel overreacts to violent attacks, they stand alone against the whole world for their survival. They are always judged harshly by Western snobs and foes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 2000 Camp David ‘Final Status’ Summit.
When Clinton summoned Barak and Arafat to Camp David in August 2000 for final status talks, Israel made dramatic, unprecedented concessions on virtually every point ever raised in the peace process, including all the major stumbling blocks that had repeatedly defied solutions because of Palestinian refusal to compromise.
According to media reports, Barak made the following offer:
• Establishment of a demilitarized Palestinian state on some 92 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of the Gaza Strip.
• Dismantlement of most Jewish settlements; uprooting settlers from isolated communities to concentrate the bulk of the settlers inside 8 percent of the West Bank along the Green Line, and annexing this area to Israel in exchange for a transfer of 3 percent of land in Israel proper adjacent to Gaza.
• Establishment of a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem and sovereignty over half the Old City of Jerusalem (the Muslim and Christian quarters) and ‘religious custodianship’ 11 over the Temple Mount; some Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem would become sovereign Palestinian territory, while others would enjoy ‘functional autonomy.’
• A return of Palestinian refugees to the prospective Palestinian state, although no Right of Return to Israel proper would be allowed; generous international assistance to help settle the refugees would be encouraged. In return,
…all Israel asked for were two ‘concessions’:
• An end to violence, and
• A public declaration that the terms of the final settlement marked an ‘end of the conflict’ and that there would be no more Palestinian claims or additional demands on Israel in the future.
The offer went beyond long-standing Israeli ‘red lines,’ particularly with regard to Jerusalem and a solution to the Palestinian refugee problem. Barak made it clear this was a one-time, now-or-never offer that neither he nor any future Israeli leader would offer again. Yet Arafat walked out, effectively shutting the door on permanent status negotiations.
As President Bill Clinton stated on July 25 (the day after the summit closed), negotiations under such conditions could not bind either party or be construed as a ‘starting point’ for future negotiations: “Under the operating rules that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, they are, of course, not bound by any proposal discussed at the summit.”26 Arafat was aware of the rules of the game and the ‘now-or-never’ quality of the Israeli offer. Yet Arafat walked out, his actions underscoring Palestinians’ refusal to seek compromise or reconciliation.
Shortly thereafter, in September 2000, the al-Aqsa Intifada erupted. Subsequently, it became evident that this guerrilla war, launched by the Palestinians, was in the planning stages
prior to Camp David. It was accompanied by escalation of violence on all fronts, including waves of suicide bombers, ambushes of civilian traffic on the roads, shootings into Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem, and rocket attacks from Gaza into civilian settlements in the Negev. Michael Oren, an Israeli scholar of the Six-Day War and other aspects of modern Israeli history, summed up Camp David and the Palestinian position in an article in the December 2001 issue of Harper’s magazine:
Why did the Palestinians constantly ‘lose ground?’ Oren asked. The peace process collapsed not over land but because of the Palestinians’ refusal to accept Israel’s existence. Historically, it has been that refusal rather than Israel’s resistance to compromise that has led to the Palestinians ‘losing ground.’ Cleaving to it will only cost them more. Oren’s assessment of responsibility is backed up by Palestinian pronouncements.
In January 1996, Nabil Sha’ath, a senior member of the PA leadership, considered a ‘moderate’ by Western observers, told a gathering in Nablus
: "We decided to liberate our homeland step-by-step. Should Israel continue [to make concessions] – no problem. If and when Israel says 'enough' we will return to violence. But this time it will be with 30,000 armed Palestinian soldiers…”
On November 28, 1996, in an official communiqué, Muhammad Dahlan, at that time the PA’s security chief responsible for enforcing the 2003 hudna, reiterated: “
The Palestinian Authority does not exclude the return to the armed struggle, and it will use its weapons.”
The term hudna in Arabic refers to a temporary breather for tactical reasons, not a peace pact. Should negotiations ever resume in earnest, the Arabs will no doubt claim that negotiations should begin ‘from the point where negotiations broke off,’ but there is absolutely no foundation for such a claim.
http://www.mythsandfacts.org/media/user/PLO-Agreement.pdf
I am certain you can find pro-palestinian sources that will tell the story far differently.
Thanks for the clarification 
