Yes. When the U.S. has criticized Israel, Israel has often curbed the worst of its excesses.

When countries have not criticized Hamas, Israel has taken that as a sign that the country is so hostile as to not be worth listening to.

So from the Israeli side alone, both sides of criticism have moved things in the right direction.

Just because things could be a lot better doesn't mean that they couldn't also be a lot worse. Look at the Rohingya, for instance.

Regarding Abdullah, it is true that Abdullah was the least interested in fighting Israel because he and the British had a tacit agreement that if he could unite Jordan, Palestine, and Syria into Greater Syria it would be a good thing, and Israel apparently was willing to go along with that.

It doesn't follow that there was no attack on the Jews. You have literally picked the very most favorable tidbit of information (and from a biased source, at that).

For a broader perspective of what was happening from, let's say, the Syrian side, read: http://joshualandis.oucreate.com/Syria_1948.htm

Also, are you forgetting the multiple statements rejecting the U.N. mandate (before it happened), that Egypt bombed Tel Aviv, that Egypt sent troops to Be'er Sheva through Israel (capturing Israeli kibbutz in the U.N. mandated Israel on the way), that Syrian troops captured and destroyed Degania Alef on the shores of the Sea of Galilee (also Israel as per U.N. mandate) and so on?

Your selective reading of history leaves one with very little confidence in your pronouncements on anything having to to do with the matter.