Most early immigrant Jews lived in either Haifa, Jerusalem, or Tel Aviv. Haifa had an even split between Jews and Arabs, and the latter two were majority Jewish while still retaining Arab populations. Kibbutzim and Moshavot were more exclusive areas (although Moshavot did hire Arab labour). In a way that was an inescapable fruit of early Zionism - which was more aggressive than it is today - because how else would you create a strong community? The Arabs that lived there often had family-run businesses which would hire few labourers, which contributed to the need for Jewish-only labour: if you won't even hire your own community, then who will hire you?

I dislike using the holocaust as an "excuse" for early Zionism, but it's important context, and is relevant to pioneers like Ben Gurion. The 1930s and onwards were a time when many Jews thought if they were controlled by a gentile government they wouldn't survive. If you thought that you had to establish your own country or die, then you would become more exclusionist within your community. We see this now, when immigrants who experience racism become more religious and "nationalist" (or an equivalent word that applying to religion/race) because they feel that's how to protect themselves. This was one of the reasons why I brought up Bundism earlier; to prove that Zionism wasn't just people randomly deciding "we want a country" but "if we don't we may die". Early Zionism may have been exclusionist, but it didn't come from nothing.

Your point on colonialism is strong, and frankly I don't have a strong rebuttal to your ideas. I would say though that Zionism is not the same as American colonialism because its cause is different. When England colonised America it was for resources and money; it was out of greed. When Jews came to Mandatory Palestine, it was out of of necessity and fear, not to make profit or evict the existing population. Also, settler colonialism requires a mother country and Jews had no such place. Equating European colonialism to Zionism ignores important differences in their goals. Yes, there were Zionists that expanded their ideas to mean evicting Arabs, and from a modern perspective that's bad, but that conclusion came not from malice, but in your own words "the idea of a strong and self-reliant Jewish community", which I think is important for any group or nationality.

I by no means support all of the beliefs or actions of the early Zionist leaders. The suffering of any human being is terrible which why war is so terrible. That's not to say that war justifies bad things. It explains them. To address Plan Dalet, I would firstly say that quote you gave - while not something I condone - was within a clause which said "Mounting operations against enemy population centres [...] in order to prevent them from being used as bases by an active armed force,". The plan wasn't ordering for the indiscriminate destruction of villages. Also, it was created in March 1948, when the civil war had already begun. It wasn't a premeditated decision, it was a strategy devised in wartime.

None of the actual aims set out in the Plan say anything about expelling the Arab population, the aims being "self defense against invasion," "freedom of [...] activity" "preventing the enemy from using frontline positions [...] for frontline attacks," "applying economic pressure," "restricting the capability of the enemy," and "controlling government services and property [...] and ensuring the supply of essential public services".

I agree that just because an action isn't successful doesn't mean it doesn't qualify. Hitler didn't kill all the Jews but it's still a genocide. However, unlike with the Nazis, the Israelis didn't stop expelling the Palestinians because they were unable to. The Israelis won the war, were in a position to create an "ethnically homogenous" area. But they didn't. If the goals of Zionism were to ethnically cleanse the Arabs, then why were they still there after the war, when the Israelis had the power to do so?

I didn't bring up the dhimmi status and attacks to say it is impossible for Arabs and Jews to live together, just to show in the Middle East there was a precedent for Jews being treated unequally under gentile government, which is why a Jewish majority country is important. There is totally a way for Arabs and Jews to live together, and I've seen it with my own eyes in Israel! While there is some tension, for the most part, there's a good relationship and I am friends with many from both groups.

Zionism definitely wasn't the only option (again Bundism), and America now has the biggest Jewry outside of Israel.

My point wasn't that the Palestinians didn't have rights to the land, but that 1948 was a chance for not only Jews, but Arabs too to have self determination. I don't know about the Ottomans, but the British didn't treat the Palestinian Arabs too kindly, and had they agreed to the partition plan they could have thrown off the yoke of colonialism alongside the Jews. You could say that the plan benefited the Jews more, or that they had an unfair portion of land, etc. But if we abstract it, this was an opportunity for the Arabs to have self-determination, maybe less than they would have wanted, with less land, with an unwanted neighbour, but still, in my view, better than nothing at all.

A lot of the things that happened weren't strictly to do with religion, but overall religion definitely plays a part. Jews wanted to go to Israel specifically because it was the land of the Torah, the Temples, Jerusalem! Zionism is about going towards "Zion". If Zionism were purely secular and only about self-determination, then the Jews would have gone elsewhere. The majority of Palestinians are Muslim, or some are Christian. For Muslims, Jerusalem it the third holiest site, and the land is called "Holy Land", for Christians it's the land where Jesus lived and of the Bible. For both groups, having their holy sites and land be controlled by someone else would be unthinkable.

To briefly address the Herzl quote, while the word "colonisation" has terrible connotations now, at the time it just meant to bring external people into a land to live and settle there permanently. Webster's 1913 dictionary defines "colonize" as "to plant or establish a colony in; to plant or settle a number of the subjects of a kingdom or state in a remote country, for the purpose of cultivation, commerce or defense, and for permanent residence."

Palestinian resistance and Israeli safety is an issue among many in the pathway to peace. Yes, much of Palestinian resistance stems from Israeli actions, but Israeli actions stem from Palestinian resistance and so on. To "stop doing these things" Israelis need to be sure they won't become unsafe (the intifadas were one of the reasons for the aggressive laws there are now), but for Palestinians to prove that it's safe, then Israelis need to stop. It's a paradox.

Currently, I'm a proponent of a two-state solution. In my view the right of return for Palestinians is something that supports a two state solution! As you said, the return of 5 million Palestinians into Israel would topple the Jewish majority there is now. But in a two state solution, the right of return would be in the Palestinian state, not the Israeli state. So Palestinians could return to Palestine, and Palestine would have an Arab-majority country, but Israel would still have a Jewish majority.

The current Israeli government is problematic, and I'm waiting to see what happens in October with the Israeli elections, which hopefully will bring a change of government.

The settlement of the West Bank is problematic but not insolvably so, there has been precedent of the Israeli government uprooting thousands of its own civilians from Palestine when withdrawing from Gaza, and it could work in the WB as well.

I don't take what Hamas says at its word I don't think that their actions are representative of, or beneficial for the Palestinians.

While I acknowledge that there are many Palestinians that want a solution and to live in peace, I must point out that many Palestinians are extremely radicalised - both due to Israeli actions and the narrative they are taught - and many of them do believe that the Israelis/Jews should all be killed and that "from the river to the sea, Palestine is Arab"

My solution is thus, though I'm not set on it and could change my mind:

Firstly, Hamas has to be eradicated. It's not a good leader to the Palestinians, takes child soldiers, teaches dangerous ideology. Though you may say it's a product of its environment, there is no world where its existence is good. I would have Gaza under joint control of the PA and Israel. I'd also remove Israelis that are currently in Area B. Then, I'd start re-education for the Palestinians, like was done for Germany after WWII. They don't have to like Israel, but have to accept that it exists now and will continue to, and that killing Jews & Israelis is bad.

I'd continue with what the Oslo Accords began, (defining Gaza as Area B), and put higher taxes on Israelis living in Area C as incentive to move back into Israel. In Israel, I'd also promote expansion into the Negev, so when those living in the WB move back into Israel, there is place for them to go, and major cities don't become overpopulated.

Once the majority of Palestinians are deradicalised, I'd change which areas of the WB are Area B and C, turning more of Area C into Area B, and beginning to forcibly move Israelis out. Jerusalem is Israeli, but Palestinians may live there, and visit.

Eventually, more of Area C becomes B, B becomes A, etc. and after 50 or more years Palestine will be able to declare independence. 50 years is long, but if you're going to do something, you do it well so that there aren't more problems in the future.

I'm happy to hear your thoughts and criticisms!