"Did the Jews forcibly kick out the Arab inhabitants (you can't call them Palestinian because the term then applied to Jews, not Arabs)."
I'm not going to get into an argument over semantics here. You know who I'm referring to.
Call them Israeli Arabs or Israeli Palestinians, or Palestinians - whatever you'd prefer. No sense in arguing the semantics as it's a waste of time and our conversation is already long.
"It doesn't seem to be taking any sides, but blandly reports"
Except that it continually describes the land "holy land" which it ascribes to Jewish Holy Land, not Palestinian Holy Land.
And if you go to page 6 (where that article continues), you will read that British troops were prevented Arab troops from entering (and thus fighting), as well as it detailing that British forces equaled 20,000, and well-trained Haganah troops numbered at 75,000 while Arab forces were at 15,000.
That article also talks about British military, Arab leaders, and Jewish leaders sitting down for a truce, so the 'fleeing' you're referring to probably has more to do with them fearing for their lives because 95k British and Jewish troops showed up, forcing their way in.
And I'd counter that with this article, from 1947: https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=lTwbAAAAIBAJ&dq=arab%20flight&pg=3196%2C857594
They make it very clear that they will fight with the last drop of their blood.
Arabs in the region were NEVER okay with a Jewish state being carved out of their land. Never.
"most Arabs fled before and during the battle,"
So, wait, you believe that because they fled in the face of a 95,000-troop of highly-trained, war-hardened soldiers (they just came from WWII), that they, what, weren't forced from their homes?
I guess I don't see the point you're making. They had no real army in Palestine. None of the Arab countries did. Egypt, irrc, was the only one with an actual military with any real armaments, but even they had nothing compared to the British and Jewish forces.
If you knew troops were heading your way with tanks, planes, bombs, guns, and 95k strong, would you stay if you had nothing to defend yourself with, or would you flee, arm yourself, then do 'hit and run' guerrilla tactics, as the Palestinians did (and is noted in the article you cited).
This article talks about acts of Irgun, who the world called terrorists
And here is more carnage, brought about by die-hard Zionists: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1301&dat=19470303&id=StoQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=E5MDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6534,232901
And here, Jews killed 50 when they bombed a hotel: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1817&dat=19460722&id=SfI-AAAAIBAJ&sjid=SU0MAAAAIBAJ&pg=5575,4105344
This was prior to 47 and these things had been happening for at least 10 years prior to 1947.
And you wonder why Palestinians either fled or fought?
So, again, I do not take your point. Are you suggesting that because people fled, that means Jews didn't force them out? The 95k strong military force wasn't the reason they fled?
The previous 10 years of Jewish terrorist attacks which culminated in a 95k strong army that was determined to take the land as their own means, what? That Palestinians weren't "forced" out?
I guess I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. You think Jews wanted them to stay? That's simply not true.
If that was true, Israel would have accepted the one-state solution that was offered up in the 60s where Palestinians and Jews coexisted peacefully, but they refused, insisting that they had the right to be recognized as an independent Jewish and Zionist state.
They even said this prior to 1947: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1300&dat=19460826&id=ujkTAAAAIBAJ&sjid=SJcDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1890,4390939
