> Things just went sideways when it came to Israelis and Palestinians co-existing peacefully. At least some of the idealists of the early zionist movement honestly believed the influx of Jewish people would be a benefit to Arabs already living in Palestine.
Teodore Hertzl (Zionism’s founder) was explicit about the need to ethically cleanse the Palestinians from their land.
Herzl, nor Hertzl. Do you have a citation or resource for this?
(I ask not because it's inconceivable, but because Herzl died almost half a century before Israel declared its independence. Ze'ev Jabotinsky is more consistently identified with revisionist Zionism/territorial maximalism.)
> "We must expropriate gently the private property on the state assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly. Let the owners of the immoveable property believe that they are cheating us, selling us things for more than they are worth. But we are not going to sell them anything back."
https://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Famous-Zionist-Quot...
Thanks. This demonstrates a world view that I don’t agree with, but it doesn’t really read to me like a justification of ethnic cleansing. The mention of removal is of poor people, and it doesn’t mention Palestine at all.
This is in marked contrast to Jabotinsky, who says these things explicitly[1]:
> Zionism is a colonizing adventure and therefore it stands or falls by the question of armed force. It is important to build, it is important to speak Hebrew, but, unfortunately, it is even more important to be able to shoot – or else I am through with playing at colonialization.
And:
> We cannot offer any adequate compensation to the Palestinian Arabs in return for Palestine. And therefore, there is no likelihood of any voluntary agreement being reached
This isn’t to somehow excuse Herzl; he’s still an essentially colonial thinker. But from what I can tell he never thought deeply about the political mechanics of Israel/Palestine itself, in part because of European colonial assumptions around a lack of Palestinian connection to the land.
(Or in other words: Jabotinsky’s “innovation” is realizing that the Palestinians are a people with real attachments, not just realtors. It’s from there that he concludes, decades later, that displacement is the only workable strategy. He is, needless to say, also wrong.)
Edit: or another framing is that Herzl was too racist and provincializing in his limited view of Arabs/Palestinians to see where his movement would go.
[1]: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ze%27ev_Jabotinsky
> Teodore Hertzl (Zionism’s founder) was explicit about the need to ethically cleanse the Palestinians from their land.
Palestinians didn't exist when The Jewish State was released and Herzl specifically talked about making arabs rich, not dead.