“The UN offered partition because the situation under the British mandate was unsustainable.”

Thanks to Jewish terrorism.

“There were two communities the offer was made to. One accepted, the other didn’t.”

Jewish-Palestinian separatists accepted, the majority of the citizens of Palestine rejected. Would Israel allow partition because (max.) 20% of it citizens want a 55% of it’s territory?! You know the answer.

“The war was launched against the Jews by Arabs in 1947 within the borders of Israel as per the partition plan.”

You don’t count Jewish terrorist attacks in 1947 after partition vote and before?

“Was war avoidable? Certainly.”

Oh really? The Jewish separatists would accepted the majority’s decistion not to split up their homeland?

“Was Israel capable of surviving even with a large Arab population without a war? Within five years another million Jews arrived in Israel, so who knows, but that again isn’t relevant.”

Again, majority rule would have not accepted more Jewish immigration. 2/3 of the Jews were not citizens of Palestine and the Jewish separatists didn’t even have all the Jewish Palestinians on their side.

“The Arab states intervened because Israel was born in order to wipe it out. Whatever order you think they came to reestablish it was one where the state of Israel was going to be eliminated and it is entirely unclear what would have happened to the Jews.”

Using your rhetorics I could say they intervened to stop Israel from “wiping out” and “eliminating” Palestine which was allready an infant state since mandate times. And it is perfectly clear what happened to 750000 Arab Palestinians.

“The Arab states failed in their attempt and now people like you claim that they never wanted to destroy Israel in the first place.”

I never claimed that. People like you want do obscure the fact that Israel on the 15 May 1948 was only a proclamation in clear violation of a security council resolution in April. The Arab armies

“The UNSC resolution you pointed out calls for a cease fire between the Jewish Agency and the Arab Higher Committee and calls on Britain to enforce it. Notice that the article talks about the cease-fire not prejudicing rights, claims and positions, where the JA claim was to a state.”

It clearly says: “(d) Refrain, pending further consideration of the future government of Palestine by the General Assembly, FROM ANY POLITICAL ACTIVITY which might prejudice the rights, claims, or position of either community; ”

Don’t you consider the proclamation of a state to be a political activity which might might prejudice the rights, claims, or position of the other community?

“You are obviously misreading the quote ‘government of Palestine’ to mean more than it does which is ‘governing of Palestine’. There is also no rejection of the UNGA partition resolution. This point you are just making up.”

It says “future government of Palestine”, not “future governing of Palestine”.

At this point they (led by the USA) were debating about putting Palestine under UN trusteeship. Even the UN peace mediator Folke Bernadotte made clear in a letter to the provisional GOI that he was not bound by partition resolution.

The UNSC resolution you pointed out calls for a cease fire between the Jewish Agency and the Arab Higher Committee and calls on Britain to enforce it. Notice that the article talks about the cease-fire not prejudicing rights, claims and positions, where the JA claim was to a state. You are obviously misreading the quote ‘government of Palestine’ to mean more than it does which is ‘governing of Palestine’. There is also no rejection of the UNGA partition resolution. This point you are just making up.

“The Jews accepted the partition. … The Arabs started the war.”

The majority of the citizens of Palestine rejected the partition of their homeland. A tiny minority of Palestinian Jewish separatists wanted a state of their own and to become a majority in it. They were even a minority within partition borders and 2/3 of them weren’t even citizens of Palestine and had no political rights. Ben Gurion declared that partition was only a step to Greater Israel.

Now! How could they achieve their goals without war and expulsion? Who needed the war to conquer the territory for a state? Who needed to become a majority and how? Defenetely not the Arab Palestinians.

The Security Council rejected the partition recommendation on 14. April 1948:

“1. Calls upon all persons and organizations in Palestine, and especially Upon the Arab Higher Committee and the Jewish Agency, to take immediately, without prejudice to their rights, claims, or positions, cad as a contribution to the well-being and permanent interests of Palestine, the following measures:

…

(d) Refrain, pending further consideration of the future government of Palestine by the General Assembly, from any political activity which might prejudice the rights, claims, or position of either community;”
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/scres046.htm

Now read carefully: “future goverment of Palestine”, not “future goverments in Palestine”!

Before 15 of May the Jewish paramilitary groups and their terrorists had allready conquered places outside partition borders, expelled about 300000 Palestininians and raized hundreds of villages to prevent their return.

In clear violation of the security council resolution and against the will of the majority of citizens of Palestine they proclaimed a state.

Only then the Arab armies intervened to restore order and law, the unity of Palestine and to stop Jewish terrorist atrocities against Palestinians and the illegal, antidemocratic and violent partition of Palestine.

This is your old trick, so I will just copy and paste from my earlier replies: You are exaggerating so as to deflect measured criticism, you are only capable of ‘acknowledging’ the Nakba when you have first exaggerated it to the point where you can ‘safely’ do so, because no-one sees the Nakba as “the worst thing ever.”

Don’t you ever get tired of yourself?

Then you go on to justify the terrorism and aggression on the part of the Arabs against the Jews which, both before and after the declaration of Israel took the form of attacking Jews whereever they were to be found, including outside of the Land of Israel.
.

I’ll repeat my original description of what happened since you haven’t actually argued against any of the facts. The truth of the Nakba is that there was a civil war where Arabs attacked Jews wherever they could find them which led the Jews to create defensible lines by forcing out the Arab population where it hadn’t run away already because it was afraid that it would be treated in the same way that it would have treated the Jews had it won. That is the pure unadulterated truth of the Nakba.