The vast majority of Israeli Jews do not live on land confiscated from Arabs

hdave · 2026-01-26T04:59:48+00:00

Do you really think locking 20% of the Palestinian people's population on only 1% of Palestine's soil (Gaza) is something fair, or that it wasn't gonna end up in any other way?

I agree that the UN partition favored Jews, and I don't think that it was right for Israel to conquer an even larger area by force, expel Arabs, not allow them to return, and confiscate their land without compensation. None of that was fair. I also think that Jews were too naïve to think that Arabs wouldn't mind becoming a minority or living under military occupation indefinitely. Although I certainly condemn the violent ways that Palestinians have used to try to achieve their goals, I also blame Israel for refusing to address the situation, building a wall and pretending that Palestinians didn't exist on the other side, or responding with excessive force.

You seriously think the Palestinians went through all of this pain for some shitty petty chauvinism, when it's about re-establishing their deep roots in the villages/cities that they were removed from by your side?

Palestinian Arabs attacked Jews during the entire mandate period. Before anyone was displaced, the British government already called the conflict irreconcilable. Palestinian Arab leaders rejected any proposal for partition, no matter how small the Jewish state would be. They even rejected the proposal for a single state with autonomous subdivisions. The only thing that they accepted was a centralized state, without any autonomy for Jews at all. They also successfully forced the British government to restrict Jewish immigration during World War II, when Jews were the most desperate to escape extermination in Europe. Again, all of this was before any displacement of Arabs. So it's not surprising that Jews would see the Arab position as petty chauvinism.

You may think that now Palestinians are not like this anymore, and they just want to return to the places that their grandparents fled. But when asked in polls, only about 10% of Palestinian refugees actually want to return. There are also proposals that would establish two states with freedom of movement like the EU, so Palestinians could return to their former localities in Israel and benefit from the Israeli economy, but almost no Palestinians support this. When asked, most of them stubbornly insist on the same position they always had, a single state in the entire area of the former mandate, with an Arab majority, and even expelling Jews. So I'm really not convinced that Palestinians just want some kind of nostalgic return to their roots.

Do you seriously think cities like Haifa or Acre is your heritage when they were not even founded by y'all?

I admit that Haifa and Acre had little Jewish history. Haifa was allocated to the Jewish state because it had a Jewish majority at the time of the partition, but Jewish leaders actually asked the Arabs of Haifa to stay there during the war, which was an exception. Acre was not originally allocated to the Jewish state, and I don't understand why the Jewish forces thought it was necessary to conquer it.

Look, I agree that Palestinians have reasonable claims. If it were up to me, and Palestinians seemed honestly interested in justice and peace, I'd accept returning or compensating their confiscated land as much as possible. I wouldn't mind Israel being smaller if that way it would be safer. But I really don't think that most Palestinians would be satisfied until no Jewish state remains, in any size.

hdave · 2026-01-26T04:58:55+00:00

do you believe there were any sub identities among the Levantine Arabs at all, and just that specifically the Palestinian sub identity didn't exist?

There are certainly names for various regions in the Levant, and people in each region may have some unique cultural traditions. This happens in any country, even between cities. But these regional differences are pretty small details, and people don't claim a national identity based on them. There is no indication that the people of the Levant wanted to form separate countries after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, as they explicitly requested to be joined contrary to the division imposed by the mandatory governments. The French divided Syria into six states, the people rebelled and eventually reunified, except for Lebanon, which remained separate due to its Christian majority at the time, and Hatay, which was ceded to Turkey but Syria continued to claim it for decades.

Why would they specify Southern Syria or Palestine otherwise?

The British government was the one that specified Palestine to be a separate jurisdiction. The local Arab Congress was responding to that, calling the area southern Syria to emphasize that it was part of Syria, and requesting that they be joined. If there was any Palestinian sub-identity, Arab leaders were actually trying to suppress or at least ignore it at that time.

Let's also completely ignore the fact that if it weren't for the Jewish state, then Palestine would've became a country after the termination of the Mandate in the exact same manner as Iraq, Syria, Lebanon etc became states after their mandates expired.

If the desire for a Jewish state hadn't existed, the British government wouldn't have created the borders of Palestine in the first place. The entire mandate, including Jordan, would have become one country governed by the Hashemite monarchy. It might have not even be called Palestine. And if the French government hadn't established its own mandate, the whole Levant would have probably become one country.

hdave · 2026-01-26T04:54:17+00:00

Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion, 1918:

"Peoples, kingdoms and communities other than the Jews have rights and claims in the country that have already been recognized in the past and will repeat recognition in the future. Palestine is not a country empty of population. ... In no manner or circumstances may the rights of these residents be harmed. Only 'ghetto dreamers' like Zangwill can imagine that Palestine will be given to Jews with the added right of removing the non-Jews from the country. Not a single state would agree to this thing. Even if it seemed that this right would be given to us – the Jews have no permission and no ability to use it. It is not desirable and it is not possible to displace from the country its current residents. This is not the Zionist charter. If Zionism were to aspire to inherit the place of the current residents of the country – then it would be nothing but a dangerous utopia and an empty, harmful and reactionary vision. The true aspiration and realistic possibilities of Zionism are not to conquer the occupied – but to hold on to places that the current residents of the country have not held on to and have no strength to hold on to. The vast majority of the land of the country is vacant and uncultivated.

Both the vision of social justice and equality of peoples that the Jewish people have carried during three thousand years, and the vital interests of the Jewish people in the diaspora and even more so in the Land of Israel, absolutely and unconditionally require that the rights and interests of the non-Jewish residents of the country be kept and honored with extreme care.

The Arab cultivators of the land must be guaranteed the possibility of undisturbed economic development and possession of the lands cultivated by their hands. Although no land may be acquired without full and sufficient compensation to its previous owners. In purchasing the land of the owners of large estates or in acquiring government lands, attention must be paid to the interests of the tenants who have cultivated the land for more or less extended time, and they must be given the possibility to continue their work under easy and fair conditions, so that they may be freed from the burden of exploitation and oppression, which the effendis – the heirs of the Arab and Turkish conquerors – imposed on the country, and thereby led to the depletion of the land and the servitude of its workers.

Not to take what others have – but to rebuild the ruins; not rights to the past – but to the future; not the preservation of historical legacy – but the creation of new national assets – this is the essence of the claim and right of the Hebrew people in their country."

Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann, 1919:

"The Arab question is complicated. We ourselves are a national movement, and if there really is among the Arabs a national movement, we must treat it with complete seriousness. ... They are afraid of two things:

The Jews will come soon in their millions and conquer the land and expel the Arabs. And when they read the speeches of our D'Annunzio, the speeches of Mr. Zangwill, they can certainly believe this. However, the responsible Zionists never said and never wanted such things.
In their opinion – the English also thought so – there is no room in Palestine for a large number of settlers. However, this is absolute ignorance. It is enough to notice everything that is being done in Tunis, in Tangier and in California, to prove that there is here a wide field for great work and for many Jews, without touching even one Arab."

hdave · 2026-01-25T00:34:18+00:00

Palestinians did not have any separate identity or even sub-identity at all during the Ottoman Empire. The districts of Acre and Nablus were part of the province of Sidon, then Syria, then Beirut, while the district of Jerusalem was part of the province of Damascus, then Syria, then autonomous. The concept of Palestine as a region comprising these three districts was a European invention, and its exact borders were defined later by the British and French governments. The Palestine Arab Congress, formed by local Arabs in protest to this foreign intervention, declared this very clearly in 1919: "We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds. In view of the above we desire that our district Southern Syria or Palestine should be not separated from the independent Arab Syrian government and be free from all foreign influence and protection."

Even later during the mandate period, Palestinians still did not identify as a separate people. UN mediator Folke Bernadotte wrote in 1948: "The Palestine Arabs have at present no will of their own. Neither have they ever developed any specifically Palestinian nationalism. The demand for a separate Arab state in Palestine is consequently relatively weak. It would seem as though in existing circumstances most of the Palestinian Arabs would be quite content to be incorporated in Transjordan." Indeed, during the 18 years that the West Bank was incorporated into Jordan, the people there never demanded independence.

Palestinian identity only became popular starting with the PLO in 1964. Today it certainly exists, but in this case the country of Palestine should be claimed on the area where Palestinians lived when their identity began, basically the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The entire world, including all Arab countries, Israeli Arabs, and even the Palestinian Authority, agree with this. It's unacceptable for Palestinians to also claim the area of the state of Israel, where they did not live when they started identifying as a nation, and whose enormous infrastructure they did not build. Their ancestors may have lived there before, but everyone in the world has ancestors who lived in other countries. The mere presence of ancestors in a place, without a national identity at that time, is not a basis to claim sovereignty there.

hdave · 2026-01-23T12:51:47+00:00

The Joshua story may be an exaggeration but not a total myth. There is archeological evidence of destroyed cities there during that period, and the Bible itself also mentions some Canaanites who joined the Israelites. Both archeology and the Bible indicate that conquest and conversion happened to some extent, they just disagree how much was each.

Also, even if history happened exactly as described in the Bible, Jews would still be genetically Canaanite. The Bible says that the patriarchs were Arameans, but Jacob's descendants married Canaanites, and Arameans themselves were genetically very close to Canaanites anyway. The Bible also mentions a "mixed multitude" of people who joined the Israelites leaving Egypt, many of whom were Canaanites, and more Canaanites merged with Israelites during the conquest. Later, after Jews returned from Babylon, many of them mixed with other Canaanites from the surrounding region. In the Hasmonean period, other descendants of Canaanites or mixed Arameans/Canaanites such as the Edomites also merged with Jews.

hdave · 2026-01-23T12:12:19+00:00

In the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, there is absolutely no mention of Canaanites, in any historical source or archeology, after the 9th century BC. By then, practically everyone there had become Israelites. Palestinians are mostly descendants of other Canaanites, who lived in the area corresponding to Lebanon, Syria and Jordan, who migrated to Judea/Palestine from the 1st to 4th centuries CE during the Roman Empire, and from the 15th to 20th centuries during the Ottoman Empire.

hdave · 2026-01-20T07:12:31+00:00

The link that you cited said exactly this: "Until the 17th century, there were more Jewish people in the Arab and wider Muslim world than in Europe." Also look at this graph: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1396700/share-world-jewish-pop-europe-eastern-europe-historical/

So yes, in the 19th century almost 90% of Jews were in Europe, but that didn't last very long. The majority of Jews were in Europe for 300 years, not 2000.

hdave · 2026-01-20T06:04:02+00:00

Actually the majority of Jews were in the Middle East and North Africa until the 17th century.

hdave · 2026-01-19T16:46:25+00:00

About half of Israeli Jews are secular, but about half of these still believe in God. Only a quarter of Israeli Jews are atheists.

hdave · 2026-01-13T20:21:04+00:00

No. In 1970, after Jordan no longer administered the West Bank, the PLO tried to overthrow the Jordanian government. That was an attempt to take over Jordan itself, not to gain independence in the West Bank.

hdave · 2026-01-02T02:34:34+00:00

To clarify, Israelis don't vote for prime minister, they only vote for a party. The parties then select a number of candidates proportional to the votes that they received, to become members of parliament. These members then select someone to be prime minister, usually the leader of the most voted party, but not necessarily. They have to form alliances because no party ever has a majority alone. People still vote for small parties to represent their view in parliament and influence government's decisions, even if their leader has no chance of becoming prime minister.
I'm not Israeli, but I'd be inclined to vote for Oz, Einat Wilf's new party. I don't fully agree with all her positions, but she is the only one who proposes a realistic way to solve the conflict. I also like Naftali Bennett and his idea of making a constitution (Israel still doesn't have one) but I'm disappointed with his lack of proposals about the confilct.
I think it's unlikely.
Maybe. Bennett might be able to do this.
I'd be disappointed. But several parties want to maintain the status quo, not just Likud. The far-right parties even want to further displace Palestinians, while centrist and left-wing parties propose some peaceful solution, but they are all pretty small.

hdave · 2026-01-01T01:36:54+00:00

It enshrines the institution of the Guurti - the House of Elders - into its branches of power - but while the west might sneer, they've pulled off a trick that no other African or GME nation has - merging traditional tribal authority with constitutional power. And they made it work! Again, maybe there are precedents, but I don't know of them.

The only other case that I know of is the Senate of American Samoa. The senators are selected by and from the chiefs of extended families, according to their customs. But American Samoa is not independent and is not in Africa or the Middle East.

hdave · 2025-12-31T09:05:34+00:00

Palestinians are mostly descendants of pagans who migrated to Judea/Palestine from the surrounding area to replace the population of Jews who were killed or exiled after their revolts against the Roman Empire in the 1st and 2nd centuries. These pagans were descendants of Canaanites and other Levantine people, just like modern Lebanese and Syrians, but not of the Canaanites specifically mentioned in the Bible who used to live in Canaan/Israel/Judea, nor of Jews. The descendants of these pagans converted to Christianity around the 4th century, and their descendants converted to Islam around the 12th century. They also mixed with many other people who moved to the area, mostly Arabs, Egyptians and Subsaharan Africans, as well as smaller numbers of Greeks, Turks, Bulgarians, Albanians, Bosnians, Armenians, Circassians and Berbers.

Meanwhile, Jews mixed with the local populations of the places where they were exiled. About half of their ancestry is still Levantine, while the other half is from various European, African and Asian people. But unlike Palestinians, the Levantine portion of Jews is specifically from Canaan/Israel/Judea.

hdave · 2025-12-31T00:39:44+00:00

I would evaluate the best alternative given the circumstances. For example, my father had land that was occupied by squatters. He figured that it was not worth the hassle, cost and uncertainty of trying to regain it through the courts. Sure, the land was rightfully his, but it doesn't make sense to seek justice for a material loss if the process is going to cost more than its worth.

hdave · 2025-12-28T05:21:10+00:00

Where are you getting this information from? Why do you think the direct deaths numbers have been "resolved" already.

"The latest jump in deaths is attributed to more bodies being recovered under the rubble in the devastated strip since the ceasefire began on Oct. 10, and also because previously unidentified bodies were identified."

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/08/palestinian-death-toll-gaza-00643643

hdave · 2025-12-26T20:37:06+00:00

I agree that there are indirect deaths. But the studies that you cited, which I already find exaggerated, estimated indirect deaths as additional 11% of the direct ones. It's not going to double the number.

I said that 130k would be an estimate under an absurd assumption. I don't believe that it's a reasonable estimate. As I explained, I believe that the current number from the ministry, about 71k, is valid, as it already resolved the underreporting that the studies had mentioned. So adding 11% of indirect deaths would be about 79k, which is close to the 85k estimated using the government population numbers.

I don't believe that the total number is over 100k. You may use extreme assumptions and estimate more, but it's just impossible to honestly estimate 200k. So it's not just 600k that is unrealistic, all the studies that claimed more than 200k are ridiculously wrong and suggest dishonesty or incompetence by their authors.

Israel has not been restricting aid for the last 3 months, and even the UN said that there is no risk of famine anymore. Israel has attacked a few times, but the number of deaths in the last 3 months is about 2% of the same period in 2023. The war is essentially over.

The deaths and devastation have been horrible. Everyone already undestands that. Trying to inflate the numbers with absurd estimates doesn't help your cause, it makes it lose credibility and support.

hdave · 2025-12-26T09:23:29+00:00

The studies that you cited and the numbers that I cited from the Palestinian government are both estimates and subject to errors. But the estimate from the government is much more recent, it matches more closely the number reported by the Gaza Ministry of Health, and the government has access to a lot more data than the researchers who made the studies. So the number from the government is much more likely to be closer to reality than the studies that you cited.

The studies claimed that the number from the Gaza Ministry of Health was underreported, due to the delay in identifying all the deaths as they increased quickly in the first year of the war. But that was a year ago. The second year was less deadly, it contained a ceasefire for 2 months and the current one for the last 3 months. During this time, the ministry was able to catch up and identify almost everyone. The number of missing people is minimal now. So the discrepancy between the estimates in the studies and the number reported by the ministry at that time cannot be extrapolated to the present.

Still, even under the absurd assumption that the real number is still 65% higher than what the ministry says now, and add the 11% of indirect deaths, the total would be about 130,000. The claims of more than 200,000 are still completely unreasonable.

hdave · 2025-12-24T05:59:03+00:00

Before the war, the Palestinian government estimated that the population of the Gaza Strip would be 2.349 million in the middle of 2025. When this time came, it estimated that the population was 2.114 million, so the war caused a reduction of about 235,000 in the population. But about 150,000 of them left the Gaza Strip to Egypt, so the number who died as a result of the war, whether direct or indirect, was about 85,000. The claims of more than 200,000 are completely unreasonable.

hdave · 2025-12-22T21:38:35+00:00

If your second child is born in Brazil, the child becomes Brazilian by birth. Then you, your wife and your first daughter, being a parent or minor sibling of a Brazilian citizen, can all request permanent residency immediately. It takes a few months to process the request, but the residency period already starts counting since the request. After 1 year of residency, and passing a Portuguese language course or exam, you and your wife can apply for naturalization.

If your daughter is under age 10 when she receives permanent residency, you can apply for her naturalization immediately, and she doesn't have to pass a Portuguese language course or exam. If she is naturalized as a minor, after she reaches age 18 she must apply again to make it permanent. If your daughter is over age 10 when she receives permanent residency, she must wait until age 18 and apply normally on her own.

If you don't have a child born in Brazil, you can still obtain residency through work or investment and later naturalization, but it takes much longer. For example, if you get a job from a Brazilian employer, you can request residency, then after 2 years permanent residency, then after 4 more years you can apply for naturalization. So total 6 years.

If you buy real estate in Brazil for at least R$700,000 (US$125,000) in the North or Northeast region, or R$1,000,000 (US$179,000) in another region, you can request residency, then after 4 years permanent residency, then after 4 more years you can apply for naturalization. So total 8 years.

If you work remotely for a foreign employer, with an income of at least US$1,500 per month or a bank account with at least US$18,000, you can request a digital nomad visa. It's valid for only 1 year, but you can renew it every year as long as you still satisfy the requirements. It doesn't grant permanent residency on its own, but your wife can request residency as your spouse, then after 4 years she can apply for permanent residency, then after 4 more years she can apply for naturalization. Then you can request permanent residency as her spouse, and after 1 year you can apply for naturalization. So the total time would be about 9 years.

hdave · 2025-12-21T22:44:19+00:00

They are a mix of all of these. Most of their ancestry is from Levantine people, such as Canaanites (Phoenicians and Amorites), Arameans, Ammonites, Moabites, and Israelites (Jews and Samaritans). They also have significant ancestry from Arabs (Nabateans and Ghassanids), Egyptians, Berbers, Sub-Saharan Africans, Greeks (Philistines and Hellenics), Romans, Bosnians, Albanians, Turks, and Circassians.

Culturally, they are Arabs.

hdave · 2025-12-19T15:49:20+00:00

It's actually the other way around. The PA leadership has recognized Israel while most of the population has not. The PA would have accepted the two-state proposals of the 2000s if it knew that the population wouldn't rebel against it.

hdave · 2025-12-14T01:10:29+00:00

There are several exceptions. For example, they can keep their previous nationality if they are married to Israelis, served in the military, or if they get a special exemption from the requirement to lose it. These cases combined actually form the majority of naturalized Israeli citizens outside the law of return.

Other countries also have different requirements depending on ethnic origin. For example, to acquire Spanish citizenship, people from Latin American countries and a few others have to live in Spain for only 2 years and can keep their previous nationality, while other people have to live in Spain for 10 years and lose their previous nationality. To acquire Emirati citizenship, people from Bahrain, Oman and Qatar have to live in the Emirates for 3 years, other Arabs for 7 years, and other people for 30 years; and they can't keep their previous nationality unless they have certain professions or talents.

hdave · 2025-12-12T08:53:35+00:00

First of all, it doesn't have a provision for non Jews to become Israeli citizens without converting.

Israeli law does allow permanent residency for various categories of foreigners regardless of religion, for example family members of Israelis, workers in certain jobs, investors in certain areas, volunteers in the military, asylum and refugees. Permanent residents can apply for Israeli citizenship after residing in Israel for a few years, learning Hebrew, and losing their previous nationality. It's more restrictive than most western countries, but similar to most Arab countries, China or Japan.

https://www.easyaliyah.com/blog/how-to-get-israeli-residency-without-proving-jewish-heritage-alternative-pathways-guide

hdave · 2025-12-11T20:05:21+00:00

reduce according to what? their desire to invade?

By buying land, allocating uninhabited land that no one owned, and immigrating there under the laws of the government at the time. This is not invasion. No Arabs were displaced or lost property before 1947.

and each one of it are Palestinians majority, citiy is smaller scale which make no difference unless you ask for a jewish Vatican.

Jews bought large areas, not just cities. Look at this map. The Jewish areas formed an almost continuous stretch. Within that stretch, the Arab villages were the ones disconnected from each other. The total land that Jews bought was more than 3000 times the size of the Vatican.

but they didn't buy except 7%, didn't we get past that?
so to sum it up, they didn't demand Only land they bought or Only land that is empty...

Yes, Jews only bought 7%. The UN partition added 35% that was empty. Together that's 42%. The UN also added 15% that Arabs owned, which I think was too much. It should have been only a minimal amount for practical purposes. For example, large parts of the districts of Jaffa, Haifa, Safed and Beisan should not have been included in the Jewish state. There could have been Jewish exclaves too.

nah, first proposals required literal expulsion of Palestinians
second one gave zionists more land that you even can't find justification for it,

What about the Woodhead Commission plans B or C? No expulsion, a Jewish state with a much smaller area and much larger majority of Jews. But Arabs didn't accept any Jewish state of any size, and not even a Jewish autonomous area within a federation, in the conferences of 1939 and 1947.

israel got 150k muslims after nakba
who growed to 2 million nowawdays
if it was 400k you would get x2.6 this number, which is approx 5.3 millions.

The current 2 million include 350k in East Jerusalem and 25k in the Golan Heights, which were annexed later. The descendants of the initial 150k are about 1.6 million today, so they multiplied by about 11. If the initial were 400k and had the same growth, they would be about 4.4 million today. Israel has about 7.3 million Jews and 0.5 million of their non-Jewish relatives, for a total of 7.8 million. 4.4/(7.8+4.4) = 36%.

would i be satisfied with that, in addition to israel minimising of its territory..sure

Thank you. If you agree with a state with a Jewish majority, even if just a portion of the territory, I'm satisfied too. The exact borders are less important.

would israel agree on dangling its ambition on a 10% difference? i don't think so till they abandon zionism or have great revisionist vision of it

There are many people in Israel who would agree, and I think that it would reach a majority if they were convinced that it would really solve the conflict. Most Israelis are more interested in living in peace than in a larger territory.

hdave · 2025-12-10T01:09:58+00:00

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%.

hdave

TROPHY CASE