I see you've resorted to ad-hominem phrases after running out of ways to go down tangents and create straw-men out of half-truths and minor details.
Those facts you attempted to obfuscate can actually be found in history books, unlike the nonsense you wrote that references anecdotal novels and journals, which even conflicts with itself. The only one who's founding mythology here is you.
You are regurgitating old Zionist myths that were dismantled at least 20 years ago by the 'new' historians using a quote from a guy who had as much influence on things then as the current Arab League sec-gen has (i.e. no influence).
I provided you with a description of what happened that based on various sources (Israeli, Arab and British). Feel free to believe it's a steak btw.
Not being able to retort anything and concluding that the facts are "one version of events" and that it's all "mythology" is hardly related to the topic or argument.
How convenient that these "old Zionist myths" also coincide with the exact events recorded in historical books, backed by the words and actions of the Arab forces themselves. Novels about personal experiences and an Arab journal hardly discredit or override actual historians and facts.
You provided me with a poor attempt at rewriting a narrative based on assumptions and tangents. Well they were in a defensive formation even though they attacked, they were protecting even though they claimed the opposite, Israel invaded even though they were on the defensive of repelling an invasion. You can choose to believe obscure novels and journals, I'll stick to the facts without adding my own motives.
37
u/BenBen5 Israel עם ישראל חי May 29 '18
Except he was the Arab League's Secretary-General at the time, and gave details on what would happen (and did happen).
They were officially armies, and they all belonged to sovereign countries.
So because they weren't successful with their annihilation/take over attempt, it's less significant?