RE: The Issue of the Land.
SUBTOPIC: What does it mean?
※→ surada, et al,
(OPENING)
Being a "majority" means nothing in an Islamic Regime. And remember, the central theme of organizations like the Islamic Revolutionary Movement (HAMAS) is to assemble "the whole community of Muslims bound together by ties of religion." HAMAS (and the associated Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters) are of a mind holding in its core principle - that "Palestine is at the heart of the Arab and Islamic Ummah and enjoys a special status."
(COMMENT)
Name a single country in Middle East and North Africa (MENA), that ranks higher in Human Development than Israel.
Name a single country in MENA that has contributed more Nobel Laureates to the world than has Israel.
View attachment 853712
Most Respectfully,
R
Then Israel should know right from wrong.

The Palestinians and Zionism: 1897-1948 - Middle East Policy Council
Middle East Policy is fully accessible through the Wiley Online Library Click below to subscribe to the online or print edition of Middle East Policy and gain access to all journal content. Learn More

At the time of the Basel congress, Arabs represented 95 percent of the population of Palestine and they owned 99 percent of the land.2 Thus it was obvious from the beginning of Zionism that dispossession of the Palestinian majority, either politically or physically, would be an inevitable requirement for achieving a Jewish state. It was not only land that was needed to reach Zionism's goal, but land without another people in the majority.
Since Palestinian Arabs were by far the majority throughout the period up to Israel's establishment as a Jewish state in 1948, the Zionist state could emerge only by denying the majority its rights or by becoming the majority either through immigration or in reducing the number of Palestinians by ethnic cleansing. There was no other way to create a Jewish, rather than democratic, state.3
That the Jewish state was secured in 1948 by the expulsion of the Palestinians should have come as no surprise. Expulsion as Zionism's logical imperative was clearly seen by Herzl as early as June 12, 1895. At the time he was still formulating his ideas about Zionism and confided to his diary: "We shall try to spirit the penniless population [Palestinians] across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly."4 Even if this was perhaps the fanciful imagining of a rather romantic personality, as some sympathizers of Herzl contend, its essential imperative was inescapable. This was recognized by most early Zionists, as evidenced by the fact that the theme of expulsion consistently ran through Zionist thought from the very beginning.5
For instance, as early as 1905, Israel Zangwill, an organizer of Zionism in Britain and one of Zionism's top propagandists, who had coined the slogan "a land without a people for a people without a land," acknowledged in a speech in Manchester that Palestine was not a land without people. In fact, it was filled with Arabs: "[We] must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the [Arab] tribes in possession as our forefathers did or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population, mostly Mohammedan and accustomed for centuries to despise us."6 This comment came at a time when there were around 645,000 Muslims and Christians in Palestine and only 55,000 Jews, mainly non-Zionists or anti-Zionists in the Orthodox neighborhoods of Jerusalem and other cities.7
David Ben-Gurion, the man who along with Herzl and Chaim Weizmann was one of the progenitors of Israel, explicitly acknowledged the linkage between Zionism and expulsion: "Zionism is a transfer of the Jews. Regarding the transfer of the Arabs this is much easier than any other transfer."8 Or, as Israeli scholar Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi put it: "While the basic problem confronting Diaspora Jews was to survive as a minority, the basic problem of Zionism in Palestine was to dispossess the natives and become a majority."9
Much attention has been paid to how the early Zionists secured land in Palestine, but relatively little study has focused on the equally essential effort by Zionists to delegitimize and replace the Palestinian majority.10 Without Jewish control, the Zionists concluded they would be no better off than in Europe, where Zionism arose specifically as a way to escape antisemitism, pogroms, the ghetto and minority status.
As former defense minister Ariel Sharon, a leading spokesman of Zionism's right wing, has commented: "Our forefathers did not come here in order to build a democracy but to build a Jewish state."11 A similar view was recently expressed by Labor leader and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin: "I don't believe that for 2,000 years Jews dreamed and prayed about the return to Zion to create a binational state."12 Though the terms are softer, the meaning is the same.
Thus from the very beginning of Zionism's dream of creating a Jewish state, there were two complementary and equally imperative objectives: gain land and replace the majority population, either by denying them their rights, out-populating them or displacing them by one method or another. Despite soothing promises by Herzl and other Zionists that Jews and Palestinians would live happily side by side, there was, indeed, no other way to create Zionism's envisioned Jewish state in Palestine.
The early Zionists pursued several strategies to achieve their goal. One was Jewish immigration. In their early enthusiasm, many Zionists and their supporters genuinely believed that large-scale Jewish immigration would soon solve the "Palestinian problem" by giving Jews a majority. Another rested on the belief that enough Palestinian farmers and labors, denied work, would accomplish the same thing by migrating out of Palestine. A third strategy, less well-known because it was conducted largely in the corridors of power in Constantinople, Berlin, London and Washington, was to gain the sponsorship of a world power, thereby affording legitimacy to Jewish claims as a counterbalance to the rights of the Palestinian majority.
The Zionists pursued all of these strategies simultaneously with lesser and greater success. But in the end it was only forced expulsion that secured their state.
Continued