W. Jones says: “I am also seeing if I can get J.Slater to reconsider his views about transferring the native population out of their homeland if I can solve his “demographic” dilemma.”
I’ve addressed this issue a number of times, in various places, including in some version on Mondoweiss. It takes some space to develop the argument, so here I will give a very brief summary. Non or anti-Zionists need read no further, for there is only a “dilemma” if you accept the Zionist argument–as I do–that there was a genuine need for a Jewish state at the time Israel was established, but it could only be justified if the harm done to the Palestinians had been minimized.
I also accept the premise that for there to be a secure Jewish state there had to be a substantial Jewish majority. The figures that I’ve seen is that in early 1948 there were some 500,000 Jews and 400,000 Palestinians in the area alloted by the UN partition plan to create a Jewish state–which was the language, not so incidentally, of the partition resolution. (There was also supposed to be an Arab state in the rest of Palestine, of course).
If you take as a further premise, as did Ben-Gurion and other Zionist leaders, that a secure Jewish state needed something like an 80% majority–a premise I accept–then the math follows that some 220,000 Palestinians would have to “transferred” by some means or other to the proposed Palestinian state.
Where I get off the Zionist train, however, is that if I believed that the only way that could occur was the way it did occur–the Nakba–then my position–as I’ve stated a number of times–IS THAT THE JEWISH STATE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CREATED.
Thus, the central issue becomes–in my argument–if a stable Jewish majority could have been accomplished, not by the violent expulsion of some 750,000 Palestinians but by generously buying out 220,000 Palestinians, then that was justified. Could it have been? Who knows–it wasn’t tried.
That’s the argument. To repeat the obvious–if you think that Zionism has no justification at all, now or in the past, even after the Holocaust, which is the position of most of those who comment on this website, many of whom appear to believe that Zionism, per se, was one of the worst crimes of the 20th century, then this argument is obviously irrelevant.
In sum, it applies only to those who think that there was a good moral case for the establishment of Israel in part of Palestine but no moral case at all for the Nakba, and who therefore have a moral dilemma.