I suggest you read the links I provided for the Concept of Transfer in Zionist thought and the two links on Plan Dalet if you think there is/was no “official policy.”

It’s funny you should mention your sources for the Concept of Transfer. This is what originally clued me in on your propagandistic presentation. Nur Masalha obviously failed to conduct credible research, evidenced by his use of works by known fraud, Israel Shahak. Shahak is infamous for taking a personal diary of one Yosef Weitz, who never so much as stepped foot into Jewish government, and deploying it out of context to prove some deep-rooted Zionist conspiracy. Far from being official policy, Weitz later even repudiated the idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Shahak

As a public intellectual, Israel Shahak was accused of fabricating the incidents he reported, of blaming the victim, of distorting the normative meaning of Jewish religious texts, and of misrepresenting Jewish belief and law.[37] Paul Bogdanor claimed that Shahak “regaled his audience with a stream of outrageous libels, ludicrous fabrications, and transparent hoaxes. As each successive allegation was exposed and discredited, he would simply proceed to a new invention.”[38]

In his book review, Werner Cohn said that Shahak was making “grotesque charges” and that specific passages in Jewish History, Jewish Religion are without foundation:[32] Some are just funny. He says (pp. 23-4) that “Jewish children are actually taught” to utter a ritual curse when passing a non-Jewish cemetery.[b] He also tells us (p. 34) that “both before and after a meal, a pious Jew ritually washes his hands…On one of these two occasions he is worshiping God… but on the other he is worshiping Satan…” I did take the trouble to question my orthodox rabbi nephew to find what might be behind such tall tales. He had no clue. If orthodox Jews were actually taught such hateful things, surely someone would have heard. Whom is Dr. Shahak kidding?.[c]

The main contention among historians is whether or not “Transfer” had remained a contingency in the case of unavoidable war for Jewish independence or a secret plot. What I’m here to address is that you’ve only presented one interpretation of the events that defined this conflict. There can be a sincere case made for the origins of Zionism disillusionment with a lack of independence being embedded by centuries of persecution, the inhumane practices of Sharia law, and the burgeoning of such practices being galvanized by Islamic revivalists present in the remnants of the collapsed Ottoman Empire. I find it concerning that there is so much one-dimensional rhetoric about Israel’s practices of apartheid (to be clear this is not a justification for anything, but rather presenting the unrelenting nature of both sides of the coin) and yet the second-class citizenship associated with that of a Dhimmi is absent.

https://nysba.org/NYSBA/Sections/International/Awards/2016 Pergam Writing Competition/submissions/Hellmann Ashlea.pdf

3. Muslim countries where Islam is the official religion and Sharia law has been declared to be a source, or even the only source, of the law, practice a “classical Sharia” system, creating a sort of “government under God.” The fifteen (15) countries that implement this form of Sharia law include: Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, certain regions in Indonesia, the Maldives, Malaysia, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen.15 In these countries, Sharia law has a high degree of influence on the entire legal system, including the areas of family and criminal law.16 In Pakistan, Iran, and Iraq, it is also forbidden to enact any legislation that is antithetical to Islam.17

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

According to human rights groups, some of the classical sharia practices involve serious violations of basic human rights, gender equality and freedom of expression, and the practices of countries governed by sharia are criticized.[18] The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (ECtHR) ruled in several cases that Sharia is “incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy”.[19][20] Against this, “the concept of human rights” have been categorically excluded by the governments of countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia by claiming that it belongs to secular and western values,[21] and the Cairo conference by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation declares that human rights can only be respected if they are compatible with Islam.[22]+

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_revival

In the 20th century, figures such as Sayyid Rashid Rida, Hassan al-Banna, Sayyid Qutb, Abul A’la Maududi, and Ruhollah Khomeini, have been described as such. Academics often use the terms “Islamist” and “Islamic revivalist” interchangeably.[9][10] Contemporary revivalist currents include Jihadism; neo-Sufism, which cultivates Muslim spirituality; and classical fundamentalism, which stresses obedience to Sharia (Islamic law) and ritual observance.[4]