Mostly fleeing attacks from murderous militias. As I said direct actions from Jewish forces.

No, fleeing out of fear, but not direct expulsion. The Jewish forces were far less "murderous" in their conduct towards civilians.

That is quite contradictory. If Jews didn't want to divide the land Arabs wouldn't have had to insist in not wanting to divide it. That said, being put under the rule of strongly nationalist foreigners who made no secret of their intentions of fundamentally altering the nature of the existing society, nor of their prejudiced views of the natives, is not something that anyone would gladly accept. I guess we can dismiss the rejection of Israelis for the return of refugees as "muh nativism" as well.

The Jews weren't "foreigners". As we've established in another thread, the majority of Jews in Palestine had been born or were long-established in the country, and most had come legally. And I'm pretty sure the Jews weren't too thrilled about living under a strongly nationalist Arab majority.

That is quite contradictory. If Jews didn't want to divide the land Arabs wouldn't have had to insist in not wanting to divide it. That said, being put under the rule of strongly nationalist foreigners who made no secret of their intentions of fundamentally altering the nature of the existing society, nor of their prejudiced views of the natives, is not something that anyone would gladly accept. I guess we can dismiss the rejection of Israelis for the return of refugees as "muh nativism" as well.

The Jews also wanted to preserve their society, which is why they rejected a binational state. But that was unacceptable to the Arabs, who wanted every inch of the country for themselves. Even if the Jews had all agreed to evacuate to the Coastal plain near Tel Aviv to create a solid majority, that still would not have been enough. The Palestinian Arab goal wasn't the preservation of their own society (which would have survived had their been no war), it was the eradication or the subjugation of Jewish society in Palestine.

These tiring hyperbolic claims that Israel's supporters keep parroting are nothing but excuses to justify Israel's own war crimes, much as Morris does. If Arabs were about to commit the worst possible of crimes, then any crime we committed to prevent it is justifiable. Sadly for all of you, these claims are based on nothing but out-of-context quotes of people without an actual say on the military strategy in that war, and fly in the face of the actual events, where massacres were far more frequent on the Jewish side than on the Arab one, and where most Jewish civilians were taken prisoner or allowed to flee to safety, rather than butchered, as a genocidal enterprise would surely have demanded.

Most actual massacres, rather than deaths in combat or shootings of a small number individual civilians or bombings, as in massacres where a large number of innocent people were butchered, were committed by the Arabs, and that is true from the 1920s to the 1940s.

The Arab armies took Jewish prisoners most of the time (though see what the Arab Legion did at Kfar Etzion), but the Palestinian Arabs had far more genocidal intentions (during the ethnic cleansing of the Jewish Quarter, Arab Legion troops had to guard the Jews as they were expelled to prevent Palestinian Arab mobs from ripping them to shreds).

The point is that while deeply shaken, Palestinian Arab society survived in Israel, and Israel even made offers of resettlement (in the post-war peace talks it offered to take in 100,000 refugees), and those who stayed were given Israeli citizenship. The end result of an Arab victory, as we can see from the behavior of Arab forces and the statements of their leaders, would have been multiple massacres and total expulsion. The Yishuv would have been completely eradicated. No offers of letting any refugees back in would have been given, and demands for a right of return would have been scoffed at.