1. That's your opinion, far from proven fact.
It’s an opinion grounded in history.
In short, as the socio-economic conditions in Palestine improved because of Jewish immigration the political situation deteriorated. This was because of Haj Amin al-Husseini, an ardent proponent of
Greater Syria, a rabid anti-Semite, and anti-Zionist. When the British and the French decided to split Palestine from Syria in April 1920, dashing hopes of Syrian unity, it was Husseini who fermented the riots among local Arabs. The Haycroft Commission of Inquiry found Arab enmity stemmed from the fear of Jewish self-determination.
In contrast, prior to the rise in popularity of pan-Syrianism, the Arabs of Palestine were content as Ottoman subjects. Not even the repressive Ottoman measures of 1915 turned the local population against the Ottoman suzerain. Their immediate loyalties were parochial. The locals exhibited no interest in the Arab National Movement. It took one full year before local opposition emerged to the
Balfour Declaration, and that was a group of Arab dignitaries and nationalists who supported pan-Syrianism – not Palestinian nationalism.
In short the radicalisation of Palestinian Arab public opinion was because of al-Husseini. This gained momentum in the 1930s, manifesting itself through encouraging violence, connections to the National Socialist Party in Germany, and rejection of Partition (Peel Commission). History repeated itself in 1947, when British officials travelled to Cairo to see whether al-Husseini would compromise on Partition. Again the answer was ‘No!’. His was a zero sum approach to Jewish national or collective rights.
In summary, al-Husseini allowed his vehement hatred of Jews and opposition to Jewish self-determination to take priority over the interests of the Palestinian Arabs.
Hence I find it difficult to agree that rejection of either partition proposals was understandable when the Palestinian Arabs: one, were content under Ottoman Rule; two, supported unity between Palestine and Syria under Faisal, and; three, did not seek statehood originally. The birth of Palestinian nationalism was a calculated decision to oppose Zionism, not an aspiration for statehood.
Daniel Pipes is hardly a neutral commentator.
Who qualifies as a neutral commentator, and how is it assessed?
In any case, I think it's nonsense. The people living in Palestine, working the land for centuries, had a deep connection to it. Many of them subsistence farmers who knew no other way of life. To imply that Palestinian Nationalism was solely to spite Zionism is completely false. Palestinians were left with no choice in the wake of Sykes-Picot and the Balfour Declaration to abandon the idea of pan-Arab nationalism and form their own national movement, particularly given the Zionists (and the British) were not interested in allowing the arabs to self-determine.
The Arabs of Palestine had a number of reasons for supporting pan-Syrianism. One of those reasons was unity between Palestine and Syria under Faisal ending the prospect of Jewish self-determination. But in April 1920 the British and French decided to split Palestine from Syria, dashing any hopes of unity and keeping Zionist aspirations alive. On the same month, al-Husseini, a proponent of Greater Syria, and anti-Zionist, incited riots among local Arabs in Palestine in opposition to Zionism. Eight months later, at the Third Palestinian Congress, Palestinian nationalism was born. This birth of Palestinian nationalism at this point was no coincidence because it provided a means of opposing Zionism. That opposition manifested itself in the form of rejecting compromises and inciting violence, led by none other than al-Husseini.
I don't remotely see how it does. And again, their rejection was "understandable".
Answered in the above.
The zionists themselves called it colonialism. I realise the term doesn't suit your argument, but we need to call things by their proper names. Clearly the zionists were the dominant party. They had their "iron wall". They had lots of money and influence. Interestingly, some zionists even exploited the anti-semitic image of "world dominating Jews" (Tom Segev, One Palestine Complete) to get their way.
Given that the rejection of partition was "understandable", could you give a few specific examples of "Palestinian rejectionism" which was so blatant as to warrant your position? Israeli rejectionism has been near constant its entire history. Only when compelled to compromise through force or diplomatic pressure has Israel ever softened its stance. And yet it continues to reject the broad consensus of the international community, as it has done for over 40 years. That's rejectionism.
Well that would be the ideal scenario for many Israeli jews. 48% polled as desiring the expulsion of Arabs from Israel (without distinction between Israeli arab citizens or Palestinians in the occupied territories).
https://www.timesofisrael.com/plurality-of-jewish-israelis-want-to-expel-arabs-study-shows/ Israel certainly has the strength to carry it out, so why not? All they need is another major war and they could do it again easily. I seem to remember Ben-Gurion being quoted to the effect that the rules are different during war time, referring to the freedom to expel arabs.
Edit: Here is a Ben Gurion quote to that effect although I'm pretty sure I was thinking of a different one:
“Regarding the Galilee, Mr. [Moshe] Sharett already told you that about 100,000 Arabs still now live in the pocket of Galilee. Let us assume that a war breaks out. Then we will be able to cleanse the entire area of Central Galilee, including all its refugees, in one stroke. In this context let me mention some mediators who offered to give us the Galilee without war. What they meant was the populated Galilee. They didn’t offer us the empty Galilee, which we could have only by means of a war. Therefore if a war is extended to cover the whole of Palestine, our greatest gain will be the Galilee. It is because without any special military effort which might imperil other fronts, only by using the troops already assigned for the task, we could accomplish our aim of cleansing the Galilee.” (From a protocol of the Government of Israel, translated from Hebrew by Israel Shahak)
Further edit:
"Ben-Gurion…understood that war changed everything; a different set of “rules” had come to apply. Land could and would be conquered and retained; there would be demographic changes. This approach emerged explicitly in Ben Gurion’s address at the meeting of the Mapai Council on 7 February: Western Jerusalem’s Arab districts had been evacuated and a similar permanent demographic change would be expected in much of the country as the war spread." (Benny Morris, 1948, pp. 39–40)
I think the increasingly distant two-state solution more likely than that scenario.
ffs how did your brain come up with that solution?