The invaders from Arabia occupied the south of Palestine and simultaneously moved toward Egypt. They conquered Egypt without meeting resistance.
The Amalekite conquerors came from Arabia, but apparently they had Hamitic blood in their veins. They were a nation of herdsmen and roamed with their large herds from field to field.
They mutilated the wounded and the prisoners, cut off limbs, and were unspeakably cruel in many other ways. They stole children and carried off women; they burned cities; they destroyed monuments and objects of art that had survived the catastrophe, and despoiled Egypt of her wealth. They were contemptuous of the religious feelings of the Egyptians.
The Amalekites built a city-fortress on the northeastern border of Egypt. Their chieftains were pharaohs and ruled from their fortress.
AGES IN CHAOS
Unfortunately, Velikovsky so completely turned me off back in the 60s, when I read Worlds In Collision, that I never read anything else he wrote. I didn't even consider it decent science fiction; nor was it as entertaining as Eric Van Danigan's ravings. I just could not get past "comet Venus" spewing carbohydrates onto the earth as the source of the manna during the Wanderings.
To be fair, when in the 70s I read The Late, Great Planet Earth, I was under the impression that it WAS a science fiction satire, and laughed my way through it.
I do like Rohl's Pharaohs And Kings, though I haven't gotten around to reading any of his later materials.
E. W. Bullinger demonstrated similar errors in conventional Biblical dating systems, due to not accounting for overlapping/dual reigns; the Hebrew convention of attributing a full reignal year to a partial calender year, etc.
OTOH, I am only qualified to state that I am a totally unqualified lay man, with just enough reading and course work over the decades to know that the conventional chronologies are badly messed up.
Looks like I'll need to reevaluate, and read Ages In Chaos.