Why would that be justified and what does that have to do with Palestine?
That doesn't mean it represents all Jews nor does it mean all Jews support it. Even if it did, it still doesn't justify ethnic displacement.
Why does that matter? The Zionist movement happened before the 1948 war.
That is incorrect, as stated during 1945 Jews only owned 5.67% of what is now the state of Palestine.
All the land the Jews bought amounted to around 5.67% of the land. They got the rest by enforcing the UN partition (and then some) which split the land roughly 50/50 despite them owning 5% of the land and consisting of 30% of the population, most of whom were migrants thanks to British policy of sending/attracting people of Jewish descent.
Source:
Land ownership in Palestine : Hadawi, Sami 1904-2004 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Source from the British Village Statistics of 1945:
https://www.marxists.org/history/palestine/1970/villagestatistics.pdf
Last page shows that the population in 1945 was 1.2 million Arabs and 0.5 million Jews in a total population of 1.7 million people
Out of 26.3 million dunums in land, Arabs owned 12.8 million, Jews 1.5 million, and 1.5 million were public. Much of the rest were claimed by Arabic Bedouin tribes that would eventually be mostly dispossessed, as quoted below in "Suspended in Space: Bedouins under the Law of Israel"
Only if by "legal rights" you mean documentation. Plenty of pastoralists didn't have documentation, ie Native American tribes. It's not an excuse to ethnically displace them.
Pasture, in all this, remains an unrecognized form of living. The [Israeli] court's decision thus becomes an objective application of a clear legal rule. The Bedouin claims of possession rely, at most, on "abstract possession" that cannot serve as sufficient ground for concluding that the disputed lands are not Mawat.'2 In other words, such "ab- stract possession," a term the court itself coins, becomes a powerful legal way of making the Bedouins invisible. "Abstract" possession is a working mode of conceptualism, in the sense that it evaluates practices and experiences through decontextualization and abstraction, namely, "outside the narratives that constitute them" (Ewick & Silbey 1995:199), and juxtaposes this abstraction with the "real" project of planting and fencing.
Finally, the demand for formal and documented proofs of ownership and possession are also rendered problematic once put in context. Indeed, Bedouins who are asked to produce proofs of their ownership rights are at a loss as far as documentation is concerned. The Bedouins traditionally were suspicious of attempts to force them into registering their lands. They considered such attempts as means of turning them into subjects of an external authority and into tax-paying and army-serving citizens. The Bedouin historical resistance to all forms of state control made them reluctant to take any measures toward formal registration of their lands (Brand et al. 1978). Under Ottoman and British rule, the absence of formal documentation did not threaten the Bedouins' control of land because their de facto autonomy had largely been respected. However, this situation abruptly changed with the establishment of Israel in 1948. From then on, the formal legal demands for establishing ownership through documentation and registration provided another objective and powerful reason for denying any such claims.
-Suspended in Space: Bedouins under the Law of Israel, by Ronen Shamir, pg 241
They asked for American land and land in Africa but was rejected. It just so happened the British pushed for them to settle in Palestinian land.
Again, what is this "higher standard" you keep speaking of? You claimed "Just to remind you: Brits are not different from other peoples", which again doesn't justify anything especially ethnic displacement. So when I say this you respond with "Here we are back to applying to Jews higher standards than to other people". Why? Because I said that Brits being the same as anyone else doesn't justify anything, what does that have to do with putting Jews at a higher standard?
Then the way the Palestinians were treated similarly was also "pretty brutal", yet you use soft-kiddy gloves instead to describe ethnic displacement as "let's call it contested land".
Two wrongs don't make a right. This doesn't justify ethnically displacing Palestinians.
Seriously, do you even read what you're responding to? I repeat:
For example, in Yemen, "Tens of thousands of Jews were urged to leave their homes and travel to Israel. As for the Jews who opted to stay [in Yemen], the Jewish emissary in Aden, Shlomo Schmidt, asked permission to propose that Yemeni authorities expel them, but Yemeni authorities did not" - The truth behind Israeli Propaganda on the 'Expulsion' of Arab Jews, by Joseph Massad.
Whereas in North Africa: "A year later it was reported that there was a sharp decline in the number of immigrants from North Africa, as a result of the information that reached them concerning the hardships of settling in Israel. "The first thing one notices now is the obvious reluctance to go to Israel," wrote one of the Jewish Agency emissaries after visiting the transit camps in Marseilles. According to him, it had become a widespread attitude: "The people virtually have to be taken aboard the ships by force." - 1949 The First Israelis by Tom Segev
These happenings weren't even in Europe, they were in Morocco and Yemen.
What is this displacement of 16 million Germans that somehow should justify the ethnic displacement of Palestinians?
As I told you, I'm not. I argued about plenty of atrocities from the Dzungar genocide to the Bengal famine.
No, I said they should have put the effort put into displacing Palestinians into fighting for their rights in the countries they lived in instead. Even if they were unsuccessful, it still doesn't give anyone the right to commit ethnic displacement.
They were the majority BECAUSE the Zionist efforts in ethnic displacement largely succeeded. Before it took effect they weren't.
You speak of the Jewish right to their "ancestral homeland", and now when it is shown that Palestinians have the same Caanite ancestry, you retort that "ethnicity and genetics are too different things".
Which is irrelevant, genetics show who your ancestors were. Just because you labeled yourself as a different people don't mean you should lose your inheritance.
You tell me. I made no argument about the total number of Jews who were "tricked" into moving to Israel. At most I said that Israel forced an unknown number of Jews to move there.
Because your comments can be debunked by old claims. And you repeat comments as if they weren't debunked.
Why does it have to do with 1945-1999 and why should I?
This is not an excuse to practice more ethnic displacement.
I would and I will, so long as you bring the sins done by OTHER Arabs/Muslims into a discussion about the Palestinian question as if it should somehow affect Palestinians. Palestinians shouldn't be held responsible for things other people did. You made an argument that relied on the support "collective punishment" more than once in this thread, and no amount of "cordial relationships" with Arabs is going to change that. It's irrelevant to the veracity of the argument relying on collective punishment as if it's something justifiable.
