The real modern misconception about the Arab Armies during the 1948 war is that they did not work together, and stifled each other by working independently towards different goals. Understand is that, in 1948, all the states surrounding Israel were new states too; Lebanon founded in 1943, but not independent until 1946, Jordan was independent in 1946, Iraq became independent until 1932, but also didn't achieve full 'independence until 1946, and Syria also in 1946. So, they all goals of new states; expanding and consolidating their territory and resources, building up their armed forces, and established their international position in power politics.

In 1948, many of the Arab states were governed by internationalist parties like the Ba'athists and Pan Arabist, who sought to bring all the Arab world under political union. However, this popular conception of Arab unity striving to unite the Arab states through political parties failed in the face of independent agendas. Nationalist Arab policies Arabized minorities within Syria and Egypt, as well perpetuating similarities between the people of the states to bring the states closer together, like by emphasizing the unifying principles of Islam and Arabic. It even culminated in a short lived political union between Syria and Egypt known as the United Arab Republic. But, while there was a popular idea of Arab unity, individual state goals dissolved the chance for multi-state unity.

In the 1948, the main Arab partners all pursued completely different territorial and international agendas. The states had a totally different vision than the Palestinians living in the Mandate. The Syrians attempted to capture and secure water rights around the Sea of Galilee. The Jordanians, had an entirely different goal. They used the war to develop the Jordanian Monarch into a leadership role among the Arab states. The king was going to use his British trained army, which was the largest Arab army to participate in the war, to lead the Arab assault and then use his British connections to secure his leadership over the former mandate, and among the Arab states themselves. While this leadership role in the Arab world never panned out, the King did receive recognition from the UK to annex the West Bank, as was the perceived plan before the war. Egypt tended to be more attracted to world-wide arab union, using its preeminent position as leader of the fight against British imperialism and being the most populous Arab state to lead the Arab world. While they also intended on annexing the territory to their own state, their was political motive in taking part, mainly, losing Egypt's position to Jordan as the most politically favored Arab state to the British, thereby becoming more reliant on the British, deepening their occupation.

So really, the main Arab partners lacked real unifying political goals, which led their military's to not support each other, creating logistical problems against the unified Israelis. They seemed to suffer the same state shortfalls to prevent war and coalition-building as their European counterparts; state self-centeredness and a lack of desire to work together.