"I provided multiple examples of fighting on Israeli territory by Arab armies, inconsistent with "only defend Palestinian land" (as defined by the U.N. mandate)."

Multiple examples? You made me look back over our entire dscussion. I only saw one link. Perhaps you are thinking of having left examples to someone else. You did not leave them to me.

I like the article you linked to. Things I noted as I read it:

1. It ignores Ben-Gurion admitting he did not plan to accept partition.

2. It does a good job of pointing out that the Arabs knew they were outgunned.

3. No matter what the Syrians did, the Nakba is Israel's fault for not recognizing the right of return that international law expects.

4. This quote only reinforces my point: "Historians continue to subscribe to the notion that the Arab armies planned and intended “to destroy the infant Jewish State, through occupation of its entire area by force”[88] and that the Arab leaders wildly overestimated their own strength and underestimated the strength of the Zionist forces.[89] The small number of troops that Syria deployed at the Palestinian border speaks for its limited goals."

Ah, well. If you can't actually point to where Arab armies fought on land intended for Israel or quote any orders to do more than defend Palestinian land, we're done.