By now, if we've learned anything about history, it should be that people only talk about "truth" when they are trying to disguise propaganda. There is no such thing as historical truth. There are facts, and the rest is interpretation. Avineri is welcome to his, but he could at least present it more honestly. For example, if fact were Avineri's sole concern, why did he choose to compare the Arab invasion of 1948 with Pearl Harbor and the Nazis? But of course, I'm sure there were no other examples in all of history that he could have used...
Suspect Bangkok bomber arrested, found with possible bomb-making materials (Reuters)
from the article: The truth should be taught about the 1948 war