Nathan: "The proposal called for a Jewish state, an Arab state and a separate Jerusalem zone – and in founding these three entities, war would be prevented."
Sure, and if the Zionists Jews would have accepted the Arab rejection of this proposal and instead accepted the independece of the state of Palestine, war would have been prevented, too. But here's a bit of history for you, Nathan. The US abandoned the partition plan in March 1948 after it saw that it could not be implemented without war. It now became the leading proponent of putting Palestine under UN trusteeship. In April 1948 a security council resolution prohibited the declaration of statehood and at the end of April the US prosposed a truce under the condition that now new states were declared. Guess who violated the Security Council resolution, rejected the truce and chose to go to war?
…, U.S. officials there faced the Jewish Agency’s rejection of a truce as well as a trusteeship arrangement to replace what the State Department and the White House conceded to be the failure of the partition plan. In evaluating the situation, Robert McClintock, a special assistant to Dean Rusk, then director of the Office of UN Affairs, deliberated over the implications of these developments. It may well be, he speculated, that Washington would soon be confronted with a situation created by Jewish military forces, including the Haganah, the Stern Gang and Irgun, in which it would have to determine whether a “Jewish armed attack on Arab communities in Palestine is legitimate or whether it constitutes such a threat to international peace and security as to call for coercive measures by the Security Council.”15 Washington would face what McClintock called an “anomalous situation,” in which “the Jews will be the actual aggressors against the Arabs. However, the Jews will claim that they are merely defending the boundaries of a state which were traced by the UN and approved, at least in principle, by two-thirds of the UN membership.”
But you allready knew that. Because I quoted the same about a month ago after YOU admitted:
"The people of a country have the right to defend their country against partition, conquest and expulsion and also the right to restore its unity"
And you also declared that "no one had a right to found another state therein (an illegitimate blow to the territorial integrity of an “existing” state)."
So let me ask you:
Why are you unable to admit that war could have been prevented, if the Zionists would have not founded a state within the state of Palestine, but instead you claim that (only) the acceptance of the partition proposal would have prevented the war, allthough you admit that a people of a country have the right to defend their country against partition, conquest and expulsion and also the right to restore its unity?
Is there any coherence in your arguments?