This WAS Weizmann's speech to Peel Commission, slightly re-phrased, that he himself summarized in his paper as you can see published in the book "Letters and papers of Chaim Weizmann, part B Papers, vol.II". I do not know how can one justify Zionist project of colonization of Palestine at all. It is in its essence a racist, inhumane, typically supremacist and delusional colonial project. But of course Zionist mean that they have a right to do whatever they want, in order to "save Jewish people" - they never saved Jewish people from any persecution, never saved them from Holocaust, except the ones that they needed for their breeding project, never saved the Jews in South America, in Iraq, in Yemen, in Morocco. They can care less about Jews if they are not Zionist. Zionists simply see nothing wrong in ethnic cleansing, population replacement, colonization, settlement of a populated land by means of genocide.
"in an astonishing recent Ha’aretz interview, after summarizing his new research, Morris proceeds to argue for the necessity of ethnic cleansing in 1948. He faults David Ben-Gurion for failing to expel all Arab Israelis, and hints that it may be necessary to finish the job in the future. Though he calls himself a left-wing Zionist, he invokes and praises the fascist Vladimir Jabotinsky in calling for an “iron wall” solution to the current crisis. Referring to Sharon’s Security Wall, he says, “Something like a cage has to be built for them. I know that sounds terrible. It is really cruel. But there is no choice. There is a wild animal there that has to be locked up in one way or another.” He calls the conflict between Israelis and Arabs a struggle between civilization and barbarism, and suggests an analogy frequently drawn by Palestinians, though from the other side of the Winchester: “Even the great American democracy could not have been created without the annihilation of the Indians.”
That’s nice and clear. Now one can find fault with the analogy, as did one outraged reader of Ha’aretz, who suggested that the annihilation of the Indians was the prototype for American imperialism, not the precondition for American democracy. But such arguments are almost beside the point. Morris’s chilling candor effectively removes him from the realm of rational argument, and hauls Sharon’s fascist vision of a Greater Israel out into the light of day. There’s no point in saying, “You’re talking about ethnic cleansing!” for Morris says bluntly, “There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing.” There’s no point in saying, “You’re denying Palestinian suffering!” for after chronicling that suffering in scrupulous detail, he observes brightly, “You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs. You have to dirty your hands.” There’s no point in saying, “This is racist!” for Morris has abandoned humanist ethical universalism, invoking the pied-noir Camus to do so: “He was considered a left-winger and a person of high morals, but when he referred to the Algerian problem he placed his mother ahead of morality. Preserving my people is more important than universal moral concepts.”
---- 2004, https://www.counterpunch.org/2004/01/16/an-interview-with-benny-morris/
