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'.
You couldn't say the Arab revolt started it. You'd have to push the date up to the settlements that lead to it. That gets tricky because a small number of settlements feels like something unworthy of being called the start of a war, but continuous settlements in large numbers is certainly worth seeing as an aggressive act. It's hard to define a point where the settlements crossed the line.
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?
You couldn't say the Arab revolt started it. You'd have to push the date up to the settlements that lead to it. That gets tricky because a small number of settlements feels like something unworthy of being called the start of a war, but continuous settlements in large numbers is certainly worth seeing as an aggressive act. It's hard to define a point where the settlements crossed the line.
It is aggression to settle in your own homeland.
Got it! 😋
Why would one need to settle in their own homeland? Shouldn't they already be there?