Legally though, the Palestinians had little to stand on
So much for legality. The Ottomans forced Arab farmers to sell their lands, then sold them to Jews. The Arabs didn't like the Turks, but they liked the Jews even less. Everyone had good reasons for doing what they did.
No, Jabotinsky did not found the Jewish legions
Even if what you say is technically true Zhabotinsky played a major role in their organization and use in WWI...and his influence hardly disappeared in the interwar period.
...the tensions between Jews and Arabs were a slow boil brought on mainly by British policies...But let us not deceive ourselves. The violence directed at the Jews was due to the fact that the Muslims could not tolerate the Zionists, their socialist ideals, and the fear that rising Jewish immigration would mean Arab land would be used for a Jewish state.
Here you contradict yourself...
What Jabotinsky wrote in 1923 would come to pass in 1948
Here you admit to Zhabotinsky's importance
but I think it is wrong to impose The Iron Wall on the Histadrut at the time Jabotinsky wrote it. In fact, Jabotinsky was labelled an extremist and his ideas discounted. His approach was not the politics of the Jewish Agency until the Arab riots of 1936, the White Paper of 1939, and of course the Holocaust, which would change everything.
And here you show how wrong the socialist were, how intolerant they were, and how, ultimately untruthful and unwilling to admit error.
They behaved the same way all over the world.
I am glad that you are fascinated by Jabotinsky's insight, but to David Ben Gurion and the other leades of Yishuv, he was an extermist. Ben Gurion's policies are the ones that held sway over the Yishuv and not Jabotinsky's.
No, Jabotinsky did not play a major role in the organization of the Haganah or the Palmach of which the IDF would emerge.
I hope I did not contradict myself. But just in case I did, I will try to say it again.
The situation in Palestine was not black and white as some would make it. The Palestinians had a real fear that their land would be used to make an Arab state. They saw British policy as the means to that end. The violence perpetuated in Palestine from 1920 until 1948 was against the British, but because they could not attack the British directly, they attacked the Zionists. But it was British policy that would be the major source of Arab violence and British capitulation in the face of Arab violence that would keep producing violence against the Zionists as a means of trying to rid Palestine of both Zionists and the British. The Palestinians wanted their own state. They did not want to share it with the Jews or lose any portion to the Jews, which they detested on religious and political grounds. I don't think that is a contradiction. The fact that they rioted and murdered Jews had to do with British policy. So, the 1920 riot and the White Paper that followed produced much more tension in the Yishuv than the sale of 7% of the land. The 1922 White Paper caused 30% of the Arabs to be forced from their lands and jobs since the British forced the Jews to absorb the immigrants, which meant jobs and a livelihood had to be waiting.
No, I do not give importance to Jabotinsky's. He was an extremist with a minority following. The events from 1920 to 1949 were what determined what happened in the Yishuv and how the Histradrut responded to both the British and the Arabs.
Where did I show how wrong the socialist were, how intolerant they were, and how, ultimately untruthful and unwilling to admit error?
I don't think we discussed what I think of Ben Gurion and the actions taken by the Yishuv during this time frame.