The Arab revolt was in response to ongoing Jewish settlement there, literally a Great Replacement.
Sure, all of it was in response to Jewish settlement, just like Indians fighting English settlers. I wouldn't say that the settlers are therefore guilty of starting the hostilities.
I didn't accuse the settlers of starting the war until they actually did start open terrorism, hence dating the start in the 1940s rather than earlier.
But if the settlers were already being massacred before, how could they have started it aftewards? Unless you want to claim that settlement itself is an act of aggression - but then you should have predated the time when 'the Jews stared it'.
Sure, all of it was in response to Jewish settlement, just like Indians fighting English settlers. I wouldn't say that the settlers are therefore guilty of starting the hostilities.
I didn't accuse the settlers of starting the war until they actually did start open terrorism, hence dating the start in the 1940s rather than earlier.
But if the settlers were already being massacred before, how could they have started it aftewards? Unless you want to claim that settlement itself is an act of aggression - but then you should have predated the time when 'the Jews stared it'.
The settlement is aggression but not really war.
Can you then say that the war was started in the 1940s and not with the Arab revolt?
It is aggression to settle in your own homeland.
Got it! 😋