But that the Nakba happened is just history? What do you think is revisionist about it?
Your account above sounds pretty revisionist though. I'm not sure if it's your intent, but your account above suggests a one-sided conflict from November 29th 1947 to May 15th 1948... but that's not what happened. There were militant (and I would say essentially terrorist) groups conflicting before, during, and after that. The event that's generally regarded as starting the Civil War after the adoption of the partition plan was the
Fajja bus attacks, carried out by Arab militants - but that followed on from the
Shubaki family assassination ten days earlier, carried out by
Lehi, a group of Zionist militants.
Irgun attacked Arab workers at the
Haifa Oil Refinery with hand grenades, with Jewish refinery workers then being killed in a mass lynching.
Haganah attacked the Palestinian village of
Balad al-Shaykh and killed dozens in response.
Plan Dalet began in April - before May 15th 1948 - with areas already being occupied in advance of the establishment of the state, and the
Deir Yassin massacre taking place on April 9th, 1948, with that being regarded as one of the factors resulting in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
Nearly 175,000 Palestinians had already fled by 1st May 1948.
The history of the region is essentially littered with brutal, terrorist, acts of violence carried out all too frequently against Arab and Jewish civilians. Any account that suggests this wasn't the case, or that it was only the case on one side, is inherently revisionist.