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.
No, the Ottomans did not force the Arabs to sell their land. The Arabs did that so they would not have to pay their taxes. There is a difference.
from an earlier post:
In trying to draw power back to Istanbul and away from the periphery, the Ottomans leveled taxes against the farmers in all of the empire. The system was corrupt and the taxes were far too burdensome for the local farmers to bear. To stop paying taxes, the farmers made a deal with the effendis. They would sell them their land and keep working it as if nothing happened. This very real sale had consequences. The effendis sold it to the Jews.
I have no interest in continuing this conversation.