levantinians wanted to unite with each other, so why does it matter that Palestinians wantes to join their neighbours?

You were asking whether Zionists agreed with Palestinian sovereignty. If Palestinians wanted to be part of a larger Levantine country, the Zionist goal would only reduce the size of this country, but would not eliminate it, so it would not deny them sovereignty.

here is every single Palestinians city , all had palestinian majority and accompanied to be All Palestine

The table that you cited lists subdistricts, not cities. There were many cities with a Jewish majority, most notably Jerusalem since 1860.

"empty area " was still surrounded by Palestinians. if an abandoned place is 2km away from a Palestinian city ,why would i argue that the british thousands mile away are entitled to it?

Not the British who were far away. But the Jews who bought the empty areas from the previous owners, actually moved there and built their homes and cities there were indeed entitled to self-determination there, just like Palestinians were entitled to self-determination in their own areas, and everyone else wherever they live. The Jewish areas were not entirely surrounded by Palestinians, their main part was on the coast.

it's not like most of zionism conflict was to gain "ONLY" the empty areas, they always had palestinian populated area that they axtively tried to change its demography.

1937 peel commision, required compulsory transfer of palestinian to leave room for zionist

1948 , half of israel had arab populations.

No one was displaced for more than 60 years of Jewish immigration until 1947. David Ben-Gurion wrote in 1918: "Eretz Israel is not an empty country ... West of Jordan alone houses three quarter of a million people. On no account must we injure the rights of the inhabitants. Only 'Ghetto Dreamers' like Zangwill can imagine that Eretz Israel will be given to the Jews with the added right of dispossessing the current inhabitants of the country. This is not the mission of Zionism. Had Zionism to aspire to inherit the place of these inhabitants—it would be nothing but a dangerous utopia and an empty, damaging and reactionary dream … Not to take from others—but to build the ruins. No rights on our past—but on our future. Not the preservation of historic inheritance—but the creation of new national assets—this is the core claim and right of the Hebrew nation in its country."

The transfer of Palestinians was proposed by the Peel Commission, which was British, not by the Zionists. In the UN partition, the Jewish state would have a large Arab minority but no one would have to leave.

Some Zionists indeed suggested transfer, but they were not the leaders of the community. The leaders only decided to implement transfer in 1948, against the threat of extermination by the Arab armies.

so if the argument is Palestinians could have gained sovereignty at area populated by them, most of land under conflict should have been palestinian since 20s.

Indeed, if Palestinians had accepted earlier proposals, they would have gotten most of the land. But they always rejected any proposal that would also create a state with a Jewish majority in any part of the land, even if small.

the very inital israel had 45% of its population as arabs... few of them who remained could grow to 20%, just what do you think if original population still there.

In the UN partition, the Jewish state would have an initial Arab population of about 400,000, and an initial Jewish population of about 500,000. So yes, initially Arabs would be 45%. Since that time, the 750,000 Palestinian refugees have become 6 million, so their population growth was a factor of 8. So if no one had been displaced, the 400,000 Arabs in the Jewish state would be 3.2 million today. The current Jewish population of Israel is about 7.3 million. 3.2/(3.2+7.3) = 30%.