134 chapter four He explains that “land-owners gained most because they were able to sell to the Jewish society at high prices, or to wait for still higher ones” (Herzl 1987, 121, 122). And when Kingscourt inquires about the “former inhabitants … who had nothing, the numerous Moslem Arabs” who were without land, Bey responds: Your question answers itself …. Those who had nothing stood to lose nothing, and could only gain. And they did gain: Opportunities to work, means of livelihood, prosperity. Nothing could have been more wretched than an Arab village at the end of the nineteenth century. The peasants’ clay hovels were unfit for stables. The children lay naked and neglected in the streets, and grew up like dumb beasts. Now everything is different (Herzl 1987, 122–123). Pointing to a Moslem village and explaining that its inhabitants have become more prosperous, Bey adds: “Would you call a man a robber who takes nothing from you, but brings you something instead? The Jews have enriched us. Why should we be angry with them” (Herzl 1987, 124)? As evident, the colonial logic of Zionism is echoed in Bey’s account of Arab displacement: the immigration of a population of superior human intellect and capacity established a settler-colonial state that civilized the previously undeveloped indigenous population. Indigenous Arabs are removed from the discourse of political and legal rights, and refused any sense of historical ties, cultural links, and emotional connection with the land. Indeed, there is no discussion of an indigenous choice in the matter. The establishment of a settler-colonial state according to rational plans is, according to Bey’s colonial logic, an obvious improvement to the previously wretched existence of the indigenous population. Therefore, there is no real reason why any Arab inhabitant would refuse to cooperate with the colonial project. Though he acknowledges the presence of the former inhabitants and their role in cultivating the land, Bey does not have an indigenous consciousness, nor does he exhibit cultural connections or historical ties with the land. More than this, his character is almost superhuman, lacking emotional depth and sensibility and instead thinking strictly in terms of cost-benefit analyses and rational plans for development. With this mindset, Arab claims to indigeneity and desires to maintain their lands, identity and culture in the face of the growing Zionist settlercolonial movement are rendered irrational.14 For these reasons, the Arab 14 Indeed, the historical record of Zionism is not far from this outlook of Arab claims to their land and opposition to the Zionist settler-colonial project as depicted by the