Since I took the trouble to read one book of Morris's, "Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited" (2003), here's a theme running through the early part of the book that shows the cognitive dissonance between the facts and the typical nakba apologist view that the Palestinians had to be ethnically cleansed because they started the war:
"Ben-Gurion, like Hapoel Hamizrahi Party’s Moshe Shapira, was concerned lest over-reaction by the Haganah would push the Arab masses, until then uninvolved, to support Husseini and his
gunmen. Yosef Ya‘akobson, a citrus grove-owner and senior Tel Aviv Haganah ﬁgure, was concerned about Haganah destruction of groves, as proposed by Ben-Gurion, lest this lead to Arab retaliation in kind. (71)
"Ben-Gurion pointed out that the disturbances were so far limited to the three big towns, Jaffa, Haifa and Jerusalem, and the northern Negev. The Arab rural communities were not engaged, and the Yishuv had to take care not to provoke them. He was worried lest Haganah retaliatory
strikes lead to Yishuv–British clashes (‘let us not rush into war with the English army’). (73)
"The main Haganah response to Arab attacks, down to the end of March 1948, remained the retaliatory strike, either against trafﬁc or against speciﬁc villages. The reprisal policy was thoroughly aired in a protracted two-day meeting between Ben-Gurion and his military and
Arab affairs advisers on 1–2 January 1948. The discussion was trig-gered, in some measure, by a series of unauthorised or ill-conceived Haganah attacks in which innocent civilians were killed. The guiding as-sumptions were to avoid extending the conﬂagration to as yet untouched
areas, to try to hit the ‘guilty’, and retaliation as close as possible to the time, place and nature of the original provocation. 48 (77)
"The problem of killing non-combatants continuously exercised the Haganah commanders. Occasionally, indeed, raids were aborted out of fear that atrocities might result (as when a unit that set out to blow up buildings in Kafr ‘Aqeb, north of Jerusalem, decided to withdraw when
it heard ‘the voices and screams of children’ emanating from a house they were about to destroy 65 ). But more common were cases of ex-cessive behaviour. On 12 January 1948, militiamen from Kibbutz Ramat Hakovesh, contrary to explicit Haganah orders, shot at two Arab women, perhaps cultivating a ﬁeld, nearby; at least one was injured and may have died. The matter was the subject of an internal investigation. No one appears to have been punished. 66 At the end of February, Haganah guards murdered an Arab peasant and his wife near Kfar Uriah, ‘without any provocation’, according to HIS. 67 On 24 January, four Palmahniks boarded a taxi in Tiberias and murdered the Arab driver (who may have been connected to irregulars). 68 Ben-Gurion was probably referring to such incidents when he criticised ‘condemnable acts against Arabs’ at
a meeting of the Defence Committee in early February. 69 (80)
"The Haganah’s difﬁculty during December 1947 – March 1948 was that while it sought to maintain quiet wherever possible, its reprisals, some-times misdirected, sometimes excessive, tended to suck into the mael-strom more and more Arabs. Only strong, massive, retaliatory action,
it was felt, would overawe and pacify the Arabs. But the reprisals often hit the innocent along with the guilty, bred anger and vengefulness and made additional Arab communities amenable to the Husseinis’ militant-nationalist appeals, despite great initial reluctance to enter the fray. 96" (85)
What's interesting about this point is that while Morris discusses it at length for almost 20 pages, he doesn't pass any committal judgement as to whether the Haganah practice of "retaliation" did in fact spread the war to the countryside. And this is before going into the series of local non-belligerency agreements made between Arab villages and Zionist settlements, including that between Deir Yassin and Givat Shaul (which the Irgun broke with Haganah collusion).
Support for a Jewish state and the need for a Jewish majority. It is entirely possible to construct a Jewish state without a Jewish majority. America is a state has strong property protections, the majority don’t own a lot of property but support these protections. A Jewish state at a minimum requires the majority to be at least cooperative with this goal.
Jeff, you're definitely confusing your personal positions with an intelligent evaluation of the early Zionist movement based on the actual positions taken by its historical figures. Let's start with the "Jewish" majority: Ruppin, Weizmann, DBG, Moshe Sharett and Jabotinsky all explicitly expressed desire for just that in the hypothetical "Jewish" state - I can supply citations if you really need them but I'm pressed for time right now. For his part, Nahum Sokolow (who basically sounded out the French on the idea of a Jewish "national home" and was later WZO president) wanted Jews to be the "predominant people in Palestine" (Schneer, "The Balfour Declaration," 149). That this was a normative aim of the Zionist movement across its political spectrum is a foregone conclusion.
And it's also an adversarial aim since the presence of any non-Jewish person was an obstacle to its achievement. So to address the remark, "Your claim was the intent was always violent expulsion," that's not my claim per se, but that it wasn't possible to achieve their normative aims without some form of persecution against non-Jewish persons. Even if in their heart-of-hearts they wanted to achieve everything without such, they were still 100% morally responsible for setting themselves on a violent course of action. And they were lucky enough to have the British knock out much of the dirty work.
Now, to save space, here's a comment I wrote on Disqus detailing the policy of the WZO Palestine Office vis-a-vis the earliest Jewish Yemeni migrants to the New Yishuv (most of it citing from Land, Labor by Gershon Shafir). In short, they were completely barred from the new settlements built by the WZO and even had to sleep in barracks built away from the First Aliyah settlements they worked at.
Your comments about the Arab Palestinians assimilating into the New Yishuv are completely and utterly risible in view of this information. Yes, Judaism is an inclusive religion, but not the Yishuv built by Ruppin, Weizmann and their fellow travelers. No Arab Palestinian could have joined Degania by converting to Judaism - Mideastern Jews weren't accepted there (in fact Jewish Yemenis were expelled from Kinneret). Had numerous Muslim Palestinians learned Hebrew and expressed desire to convert to Judaism so they could join the Yishuv, they almost certainly would have exposed Zionism as the wannabe white supremacist movement it actually was.