MODERN HISTORY TERM 1, 2012

TORI HARNETT MRS NAIDOO

Page | 1

Contents
Contents................................................................................................................................................................................................................................2 RATIONALE.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................3 MIND MAP..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................4 ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................4 HYPOTHESIS.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................5 Focus Questions...............................................................................................................................................................................................................5 DEFINITIONS.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................7 RESEARCH.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................8 APPENDIX........................................................................................................................................................................................................................28 Figure 1..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................28 Figure 2..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................29 Figure 3..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................30 Figure 4..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................32

Page | 2

RATIONALE
I chose to base my hypothesis around the event of the withdrawal of the UNEF from the Sinai region and the Gaza Strip as I thought it would be an interesting topic to cover and it is also a significant factor in both the Six Day War and the overall Arab-Israeli Conflict. There is much controversy surrounding this topic as there were many events that took place that cant be absolutely justified by solid facts; there are only theories made by historians to try and give explanation for the events that occurred during this section of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. With this being the case, there are many questions that can arise which made it easier to develop focus questions because there was such a vast number of questions that could have been asked in order to get the same conclusion. There was a large amount of information on the specific event so it was no hard to gather information to justify the hypothesis. I managed to find a variety of sources, including DVDs (both primary and secondary), books (both primary and secondary), and online sources. In this variety there were a number of valuable quotes in the variety of source so it will be much easier to justify the hypothesis with primary quotes from the opposing sides that were involved in the conflict and in the process it will make my essay more reliable as I have primary sources that corroborate with secondary sources. The sources that were related to each of the focus questions were easy to evaluate as the authors had such strong standpoints in their writings. I found that this was because of the fact that the authors were either from one of the countries involved in the conflict or they were historians that had taken sides as to which of the opposing countries were and were not at fault; this viewpoint which was most likely developed during their years at university or from firsthand experience on the topic.

Page | 3

MIND MAP

Page | 4

HYPOTHESIS
The 1967 Six Day War was largely attributed to Egyptian President Nasser demanding the withdrawal of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) from the Sinai region and the Gaza Strip. This fuelled the already existing religious and political differences between Israel and the surrounding Arab countries.
Focus Questions 1. What evidence is there that religious and political differences existed between Israel and the Arabs prior to the 20th Century? a. What beliefs did the Arabs hold in terms of their religion and political system? b. What beliefs did the Israelis hold in terms of their religion and political system? 2. What were Nassers ideologies and how did it influence his involvement in the Arab-Israeli Conflict? a. How did Nasser develop the ideologies that he supported? b. How did these beliefs elevate his reputation in the Arab World and was his rise in popularity a direct result of religious and political conflict that was already at hand between the Arabs and the Israelis? 3. What were the reasons behind Nasser demanding the withdrawal of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) from Sinai and the Gaza Strip? a. How did Nasser go about demanding the withdrawal of the UNEF? b. How did the UNEF react to this demand and why did they comply with the demand? 4. How did Israel react to the withdrawal of the UNEF? What was the impact of the war that ensued? a. How did Israel find out about the decision of the UNEF to withdraw? b. In what way did Israel counter this implied attack from Egypt/President Nasser? 5. How did this event worsen the religious and political differences between the two nations? a. Were the dramatic changes in the borders that occurred with the capture of territory have an effect of the political and religious differences between the Arabs and the Israelis?

Page | 5

JUSTIFICATION OF CHOSEN HYPOTHESIS Original choice of hypothesis: The ongoing religious and political beliefs that existed between Israel and the surrounding Arab countries, evident in the Six Day War, prompted the capture of enemy territory by Israel. This event, in turn, lead to the recruitment of Arabic civilians into the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO). Final choice of hypothesis: The 1967 Six Day War was largely attributed to Egyptian President Nasser demanding the withdrawal of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) from the Sinai region and the Gaza Strip. This fuelled the already existing religious and political differences between Israel and the surrounding Arab countries. I chose the original hypothesis as my starting point as I thought it would be an interesting topic to cover. I found that it was hard to gather information about the specific recruitments that occurred after the Six Day War. Because of this I hadnt developed any focus questions and decided that it was best if I chose a more common event in the Arab-Israeli Conflict which led me to my final choice of hypothesis. I decided to base my hypothesis on President Nasser and his involvement in the withdrawal of the UNEF from the Sinai and Gaza as I had researched it during previous researching about the PLO and I found that there was quite a vast amount of information on the particular topic. The information I researched about this event was all chronological so I thought that I would be easier to develop focus questions as I basically had the subject for each question right in front of me in all the sources I looked at.

Page | 6

DEFINITIONS
Anti-Zionism opposition to various ideologies within Zionism, opposition to the Jewish state of Israel founded on that concept, or opposition to specific Israeli government policies. Arab, n. a member of a Semitic people inhabiting Arabia, whose language and Islamic religion spread widely throughout the Middle East and northern Africa from the seventh century. Conflict, n. a state of disharmony between incompatible or antithetical persons, ideas, or interests; a state of open, often prolonged fighting; a battle or war. Gamal Abdel Nasser Egyptian army officer and politician who served as prime minister and president of Egypt and as the president of the United Arab Republic. Israel an ancient kingdom of Palestine founded by Saul, located in the southwest of Asia on the eastern Mediterranean Sea. Israeli, adj. of or relating to modern-day Israel or its people; a native or inhabitant of modern-day Israel. Jew a member of the Jewish people, an ethnoreligious group originating the Israelites or Hebrews of the ancient Middle East. The ethnicity and the religion of Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation. Nasserism an Arab nationalist and pan-Arab ideology, combined with a vaguely defined socialism, often distinguished from Eastern bloc or Western socialist thought by the label Arab Socialism. UNEF acronym for the United Nations Emergency Force. It was established to secure and end the 1956 Suez Crisis with Resolution 1001. Zionism a nationalist or national liberation Jewish political movement that, in its broadest sense, has supported the self-determination of the Jewish people in a sovereign Jewish national homeland.

Page | 7

RESEARCH
Source Line of Fire - Six Day War 1967, 2003. [DVD] unknown, England: Cromwell Productions. Notes By threatening the UN, Nasser was saying that he was the Pan-Arab leader; Egypt will lead the Arab world to victory against Israel Laying down gauntlet to Israel, threatening them and making them aggressive to give him a reason for going into Israel and attacking Deploy in secret, concentrate his forces away from prying eyes Do all the things he couldnt do if United Nations were there o Push forces up to Israeli border o Move to fortified around northern and central axis o Prepare his forces for war Unintentional consequences of Nassers actions o Raised the Israeli guard o When UN left, thought carefully about deployments in the near future o Nasser lost his idea of surprise and, in some way, gave the initiative back to the Israelis One of the central parts of the Israeli military doctorates is the pre-emptive strike Allowed them time to organise and execute it Evaluation This source gives a reliable insight into the intentions of Egyptian President Nasser in the removal of the UN from the Sinai borders and the Gaza Strip, which is focusing on the third research question. The account of the war is given by Lloyd Clark from the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst and he specialises in the Arab-Israeli Conflict so he is able to give valid and straight-to-the-point information on the topic. The information within this portion of the DVD is relevant to my hypothesis as it is directly related to Nasser and the withdrawal of the UN from Sinai and the Gaza Strip as well as the closing of the Strait of Tiran. The information that is given corroborates with basic research done on the particular area of focus which further suggests its validity. The information that Clark gives suggests that there is only a small mention of bias; in the way he explained how Nasser threatened the UN. This has little to no effect on the

Page | 8

overall validity of the source as the information within backs up all other sources that are related to research question three. Dr Andre Oboler. 2007. Israel: The Six Day War. [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.zionismontheweb.org/m iddle_east/Israel/Israel_six_day_war. htm. [Accessed 14 February 12]. Pre-emptive attack by Israel on 5th June, 1967 Blockade by Egypt of the Gulf of Aqaba provided the immediate trigger Cold War tensions played a part: o Soviets encouraged and exploited destabilisation in region o Provided military and economic aid to Syria to endanger Jordan and Iraq while increasing threat to Israel Terrorist attacks against Israel o 35 attack is 1965, 41 attacks in 1966, 37 attacks in first 4 months of 1967 Israel complained to UN Security Council about Syria shelling Israeli villages from Golan Heights o Soviets used their veto to prevent any action being taken to stop Syrian aggression Syria attacked Israeli agricultural equipment o Used machine guns, tanks, heavy mortars o Israel managed to shoot down 6 MiGs Syrians complained about Egypts lack of support during attack Egypt responded with threats of war, mobilising troops and closing Straits of Tiran This source is relevant to the third research question and gives a detailed timeline of the lead up events and the events during the Six Day War. The information within the source suggests that the Arab nations are to blame as the final quote makes it seem as though Nasser is the enemy, explicitly stating that Israel needs to be exterminated of all Zionists. This bias could affect the overall validity of the source, but seeing as though the information supports the other sources, it can be concluded that it is a reliable source. The author of the site is a Ph.D. doctor and has been involved in the UK Jewish community as an executive member of the Union of Jewish Students (UJS) and a deputy on the Board of Deputies of British Jews. In 2006 (during the Hizbullah crisis) Andre was the UK delegate on the Bayit Meshutaf program run by the Israeli

Page | 9

Lead to Israels pre-emptive attack Straits of Tiran and Sinai border protected by neutral UN mission Egyptian President Nasser demanded the withdrawal of UN operations in the area (UN Secretary general) UN complied, allowing situation of aggression to increase As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is a total war which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence. Cairo radio statement June 5, 1967, first day of war/Israeli pre-emptive strike Entire Israeli air force attacked Egyptian air fields In 2 hours approx. 300 Egyptian aircrafts were destroyed Israeli fighters attacked Jordanian and Syrian air forces and one in Iraq End of the first day, entire Egyptian and Jordanian air forces and half of Syrian air force destroyed Israel conquered enough land to more than triple the area already in their control From 8,000mi2 to 26,000mi2 Israel unified Jerusalem Sinai, Golan Heights, Gaza strip and West bank under Israeli control Now ruled over 750,000 Palestinians

Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He has had extensive experience in the Jewish community and he would more than likely be well informed on the Arab-Israeli Conflict and all the events that happened during which makes this source reliable.

Mitchell Bard. 2008. The 1967 Six Day War. [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ jsource/History/67_War.html. [Accessed 17 February 12].

This source has relevance to the 4th research question. The information that was taken from this source was primarily from a book and simply copied onto this website which is why the information is perfectly reliable. The source has a list of its own sources, all of which are book references, meaning that Bard had definitely done his research before writing this book, no less would have been expected as the book would not have been published if the information he was writing wasnt valid. The information is in another way valid as it corroborates with

Page | 10

other sources that have been researched for this assignment. There is most definitely bias in the source, in favour of Israel Bard uses such words as conquered and unified making it seem that the Israelis were the good guys in this war. Also given the fact that it was the Arabs who taunted the Israelis into fighting, it gives further support to this claim of bias. Mitchell Bard. 2008. The 1967 Six Day War. [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ jsource/History/67_War.html. [Accessed 17 February 12]. Nasser ordered UNEF to withdraw from Sinai on May 16 UN Secretary General U Thant complied with the order Voice of the Arabs radio station: o As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence. May 22, Egypt closed Straits of Tiran to all Israeli shipping Cut off Israels only supply route with Asia Stopped flow of oil from main supplier, Iran UN acknowledged the Jewish States right to access through the Straits of Tiran Blockade violated the Convention on the Territorial Sea This source contains a detailed description of the direct events that lead up to the Six Day War. Its is relevant to the 2nd and 3rd focus question. The amount of quotes with reliable sources as well as the fact that the information in the source supports other sources must mean that the information within this source is reliable and valid. There is bias detected in the source as it gives off the idea that President Nasser was one of the reasons why the war was instigated by Israel. This can be proven as his constant meddling with the Israelis and the fact that he taunted them to fight almost daily

Page | 11

 Terry Mendoza. 2007. Movie Clips. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.sixdaywar.co.uk/movie s.htm. [Accessed 12 February 12]

and Contiguous Zone, adopted by the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea on April 27, 1958 Nasser was aware of the pressure he was exerting to force Israels hand and challenged them to fight almost daily After blockade was set up he defiantly declared: The Jews threatened to make war. I reply: Welcome! We are ready for war. Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight.

shows that he was the more than partially the reason behind Israel instigating the war. Also given the fact that it was Egypt who Israel attacked first further supports the bias that exists within the source.

Israel captured Sinai peninsula, the Gaza strip, West Bank This gives very basic information about Israels victories during the Six and Golan Heights Day War. The footage is from the Defeated combined armies of Egypt, Syria and Jordan actual event meaning that it is a primary source which gives me no reason to question its reliability and validity as false. The information will most likely be used in the essay in relevance to the 4th focus question. June 5 10, 1967 Initiated by General Moshe Dayan, Israeli Defence Minister Israel vs. Syria, Jordan and Egypt May 1967, Egyptian President Nasser decided that the UN were no longer needed in the Suez region Nasser ordered a concentration of Egyptian military forces to the Suez region Israelis saw this as Egypt preparing to attack This source gives details into the 4th focus question. It reinforces the validity of the other sources that are to do with the same topic and its own validity at the same time as all the information corroborates. There is bias in the source yet it is only when the author is explaining the defeat of the Arab nations. He makes it seem as

Chris Trueman, 2012. The Six Day War. [ONLINE] Available at http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/s ix_day_war_1967.htm. [Accessed 12 February 12]

Page | 12

Egyptians enforced a naval blockade which closed off the Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping Israel launched military campaign against Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq The air forces of those 4 Arab countries were destroyed on ground on June 5th West Bank of Jordan River had been cleared of Jordanian forces The Golan Heights had been captured from Syria Israeli forces moved 30 miles into Syria itself Temporarily weakened the man who was seen as the leader of the Arabs Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt Massive blow to the Arabs morale as 4 of the strongest Arab countries nations systematically defeated by one nation Now that they had defeated and captured some of the enemy territories, they had a massive area that could be used for strategic purposes The only downfall of it was now Israel had 600,000 Arabs under their control and there was conflict between the two religious groups as well as political conflict between the nations Syrian columnist Khayri Hama: "... the conflict with the Zionist enemy has never been a border issue, nor an interstate conflict but rather a total confrontation concerning the survival of our [Arab] nationalism . . . against threats posed by the Israeli entity." - From Syrian

though the Israelis were the good side and the Arabs were the bad and this can be seen when the author uses the words defeated and destroyed the Arab forces. The reliability of the source doesnt need to be questioned as the author, Chris Trueman, has his Honours in History and has spent many years in different universities as a lecturer. In saying this it can be concluded that he would have legitimate information if he was to share it with university level students.

Israel Hanukoglu, Ph.D, 2012. ArabIsraeli Conflict: Role of religion. [ONLINE] Available at http://www.science.co.il/arab-israeliconflict-2.asp. [Accessed 4 March 12]

This source is in regard to the 1st focus question as it outlines the religious aspects that differ between the Arabs and Israelis. There is bias within the source as the author states

Page | 13

daily Al-Ba'th, July 26, 1994 Arab Nations frequently present the Arab-Israeli conflict as a religious conflict of the Muslims against the so called "infidel Jews" the Arab countries at war with Israel use Islamic religion as an ideology to mobilize the Arab as well as non-Arab Muslim nations against Israel In historical perspective, the wish of Islamists for global rule is reminiscent of the communist ideology to establish a "world nation of proletariat" (the communist slogan was "Workers of the world unite!") It is significant that at the peak of the power of the USSR empire, the Arab countries were strong natural allies of the USSR against the West. In contrast to Islam, the Jewish beliefs and traditions are associated specifically with the Jewish People Judaism strongly opposes forced conversions of other nations Israel does not seek expansion beyond the Land of Israel. Israel has withdrawn its army from territories captured after each war (for example giving up all of Sinai peninsula) "If one comes to slay you, slay him first" (Brachot, 58) The rise of Israel is seen as a threat by many believers in Islam Judaism should be seen for what it really is: the first monotheistic religion that led to the birth of other monotheistic religions, Christianity and Islam

that Judaism led to the birth of other monotheistic religions i.e. Christianity and Islam. This suggests that they author is backing the Jews when it comes to the idea behind the Arab-Israeli Conflict; the fight over the holy land. Bias can also be seen but it is possible for it to be perceived as both for and against the two sides as the author has written it in such a way to give both perspectives. An example of this can be seen in the 2nd and 3rd points where Hanukoglu has written about how religion has been used to aid the wars. He uses the word against and both times in a certain favour to the Arabs though it is not clear who the actual bad guy is in the situation. I feel as though this means that it would be possible for the reader to think that the Arabs are the enemy as they seem to be instigating the war though they could also think that the Jews/Israelis are the enemy as the Arabs might just be protecting themselves. The author of the source established the first version of this site during his Page | 14

term as The Science Adviser to the Prime Minister Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu during 1996-1999. With this information, and with support from the fact that this site is the national database and directory of science and technology related sites in Israel, this source is reliable and will be used in the assignment. The validity of the source comes into question because of the unknown age of the specific site. It isnt stated anywhere that it was written recently which could affect its reliability seeing as though there may have been new information released from the time it was created to the present. Roger A. Lee, 2012. The IsraeliPalestinian Conflict. [ONLINE] Available at http://www.historyguy.com/israelipalestinian_conflict.html#.T1_hTcUgc eU. [Accessed 4 March 12] The Israelis believe that they are entitled to the land now known as Israel, while the Palestinians believe that they are entitled to the land they call Palestine Both sides claim the same land; they simply call the land by different names. For religious Jewish Israelis and religious Muslim Palestinians, the belief is deeper still, for both sides believe that God (called Jehovah by the Jews and Allah by the Muslims), gave them the land, and that to give it away or to give it up to another people is an insult to God and a sin. The information in this source is in relation to the 1st focus question as it gives an understanding of the religious conflicts that existed between the Jews and Arabs before the Arab-Israeli Conflict. There is bias in the source that is in favour of the Arabs as the author writes it to make it seem that the Arabs were the victims as they were worried about becoming a minority in a country

Page | 15

After the Holocaust Jews began calling themselves "Israelis" after their old name for their ancient homeland of Israel the Arab population of the area who came to be known as "Palestinians," after the old Roman and Greek name for the area In the two thousand years after most of the Jewish population was killed off by the Romans or forced to leave, Arabic-speaking Muslims became the dominant ethnic group According to records of the Ottoman Empire, which ruled Palestine for several centuries, in the year 1900, the population of Palestine was 600,000, of which 94% were Arabs Many Arabs were willing to sell land to the incoming Jews, many other Palestinian Arabs were worried about becoming a minority in a country they considered their own While large numbers of Jews moved to Palestine in the 1940s, a movement called "Zionism" began in the late 1800s, which influenced many Jews from around the world to move to Palestine to reclaim their ancient "homeland" of Israel By the 1930s, the numbers of Jews had risen to a point that alarmed many Palestinian Arab leaders Fighting and hostility never really ended between the Jews and Arabs Both the Jews and the Palestinians formed militias and other military units to fight each other and to prepare for

they considered their own. This suggest that the Arabs were being overtaken against their will by the Jews. It can also be seen when the author writes that the Arab leaders were getting distressed over the growing numbers of Jews in Israel/Palestine. I interpret this as the Arabs are trying to keep out the enemy as such and that they are the innocent players in this war. Roger Lee holds Bachelor of Arts degrees from Washington State University in History and Political Science. He also holds a Master of Arts degree from the University of Washington, Tacoma in Educational Administration. He is a veteran educator, teaching Social Studies to a diverse student population at an alternative high school in Auburn, Washington for ten years. Mr. Lee is currently an Assistant Principal at Auburn Senior High School, also in Auburn, Washington. In finding all this information about the author and his credentials means that the information that he has written can be seen as credible. The fact that the site Page | 16

the day when the British would leave

was recently updated also suggests that there is validity in the source as it is up-to-date with recent events that may have occurred that are in relation to this topic. This source gives an insight into President Nassers ideologies and how they influenced his involvement in the Arab-Israeli Conflict, which is the topic of the 2nd focus question. It explains his involvement in the political side of the war which is an extension to the overall question. It seems as though the bias is against Nasser as words like feared were used against him as well as the fact that he was encouraging Arab nationalism. This would have most likely lead to war because of the fact that Arabs would have thought that their cause was more important than that of the Jews when in reality they were fighting for the same thing. Over the last twenty years Simkin has written several history books, varying in topics, and this shows that he has a vast knowledge of history in general

John Simkin, 2012. Gamal Abdel Nasser. [ONLINE] Available at http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/ 2WWnasser.htm. [Accessed 4 March 12]

During the Second World War Nasser developed republican views. He secretly recruited cadets and young officers into what became known as the Free Officers Movement The failed 1948 Palestine campaign reinforced Nasser's view that the government of Farouk I was inefficient and corrupt He was in favour of liberating Palestine from the Jews He also began buying fighter aircraft, bombers and tanks from the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia Redistributed land in Egypt and began plans to industrialize the country Advocated Arab independence Reminded the British government that the agreement allowing to keep soldiers at Suez expired in 1956 Anthony Eden, the British prime minister, feared that Nasser intended to form an Arab Alliance that would cut off oil supplies to Europe Nasser now blocked the Suez Canal. He also used his new status to urge Arab nations to reduce oil exports to Western Europe Nasser acknowledged as leader of the Arab world Nasser also encouraged Arab nationalism and revolution

Page | 17

took place in Iraq

Wikipedia, 2012. Nasserism. [ONLINE] Available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasserism . [Accessed 6 March 12]

the scale of the Arab defeat in the Six Day War of 1967 severely damaged the standing of Nasser, and the ideology associated with him Nasser himself was opposed vehemently to Western imperialism, sharing the commonly held Arab view that Zionism was an extension of European colonialism on Arab soil largely a secular ideology led to direct conflict with Islamic orientated Arab political movements from the 1950s onwards

as the books would not have been allowed to be published if there was false information within the books. In knowing that the information that was in the books are of a reliable nature, the information that he puts on his website is more than likely going to be reliable as well as it will be information that was taken from his books. This source is relevant to the 2nd focus question. It was only used to support the following sources with their information on Nassers ideologies. This source cannot be justified as reliable as Wikipedia is able to be edited by anyone if they have another website to back up their changes and since anyone can create a false website; this source is not very reliable for historical research. Sites like these are only good to use as a starting point for further research or to broaden your basic knowledge on the topic. There is bias within the source as it is based on a mans beliefs/opinions, meaning it will be in favour of him and his ideologies.

Page | 18

Ami Isseroff, 2008. Nasserism. [ONLINE] Available at http://www.mideastweb.org/MiddleEast-Encyclopedia/nasserism.htm. [Accessed 6 March 12]

a Pan-Arab ideology based on the ideas of former Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser claim to favour socialism, pan-Arabism, anti-imperialism, anti-colonialism and anti-Zionism Nasserist parties insist that they favour democracy, though the regime of Gamal Abdel Nasser was not democratic maintain separation of church and state combat what they see as Western interference in Arab affairs

This source is focusing on the 2nd focus question as it is giving an insight into the beliefs of Nasser when it came to the conflict between Arabs and Israelis. The information within the source contains bias that is in favour of Nasserism as it is a website that is dedicated to the Middle East and its history. He was supportive of anti-Zionism and when the author uses the word favours, I think that it was a way to lessen the extremity of the ideology of being against the Zionists to the extent Nasser was in the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Another detection of bias in favour of Nasser can be seen when the author phrases a sentence to be what they see as instead of what is. He used his words in a way to portray Nasserism in their mind/eyes and not from an outsiders perspective. Because there is no information about the author of the site, it is hard to predict the reliability of the source. The only thing that can determine it is the corroboration with the previous source and since the information in Page | 19

Alison Weir, 2012. A Synopsis of the Israel/Palestine Conflict [ONLINE] Available at http://www.ifamericansknew.org/histo ry/. [Accessed 6 March 12]

Zionists represent an extremist minority of the Jewish population Create a Jewish homeland, and they considered locations in Africa and the Americas, before settling on Palestine more Zionists immigrated to Palestine many with the express wish of taking over the land for a Jewish state the indigenous population (Arabs) became increasingly alarmed Fighting broke out, with escalating waves of violence Hitler's rise to power, combined with Zionist activities to sabotage efforts to place Jewish refugees in western countries, led to increased Jewish immigration to Palestine, and conflict grew Before the 20th century, most Jews in Palestine belonged to old Yishuv, or community, that had settled more for religious than for political reasons. There was little if any conflict between them and the Arab population. Tensions began after the first Zionist settlers arrived in the 1880s...when [they] purchased land from absentee Arab owners, leading to dispossession of the peasants who had cultivated it. Don Peretz, The ArabIsraeli Dispute.

both support each other, it is possible to claim that this source as reliable. This source is in relation to the 1st focus question. The information within the source is about the religious conflict that existed before the 20th century and how it escalated into the Arab-Israeli Conflict. This site is an independent research and information-dissemination institute, with particular focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, U.S. foreign policy regarding the Middle East, and media coverage of this issue. Specifically, the organizations objective is to provide information that is to a large degree missing from American press coverage of this critical region. The author of the information, Alison Weir, has travelled independently throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip so she has had firsthand experience with the conflict. Taking into consideration this information and the fact that this source corroborates with (Lee, 2012), this source can be seen as fairly reliable. There is bias in the source and it

Page | 20

Michael K. Carroll, 2005. From Peace (Keeping) to War: The United Nations and the Withdrawal of the UNEF. [ONLINE] Available at http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2005/issu e2/jv9no2a5.html. [Accessed 6 March 12]

UN Secretary-General U Thant's decision to abruptly remove UN forces, in response to Egyptian President Gamal Abd al-Nasser's demand, is seen as one of the factors that led to the 1967 War, as well as to a failure in peacekeeping. - Michael K. Carroll UNEF's hasty withdrawal in particular, and the UN's inability to even imagine, let alone actively manage, peacekeeping's retreat, paved the way for the decadedelayed conclusion of hostilities between Israel and Egypt in the form of the Six-Day War Nasser risked losing credibility throughout the Arab world if he did not live up to the terms of the Syrian-UAR Mutual Defense Pact May 13, 1967, to remove UNEF and deploy UAR troops along the Israeli border was subsequently made to strengthen his position throughout the Arab world doubtful that Nasser intended his actions to provoke a war with Israel, yet the alternative--losing prestige and influence throughout the Arab worldwas deemed even

seems to be slightly against the Zionists. Examples of this bias can be seen when the author suggests that the Palestinians were alarmed at the growing number of Zionists, that the Zionists were going to sabotage the plans to move Jews to western countries, and that the Zionists were the ones that entered the country and took over. This source gives details into the reasoning behind and the actual withdrawal of the UNEF from the Sinai region and the Gaza Strip meaning that it has relevance to the 3rd focus question. The author of the source, Michael K. Carroll, teaches at Seiwa College, Japan. His dissertation at the University of Toronto examined the political and military aspects of Canada's involvement in the United Nations Emergency Force, as well as the underlying myth of Canadian peacekeeping. His work has been used on other university websites, such as the University of Calgary Press and Wilfrid Laurier University. The fact that his work has been

Page | 21

less palatable from the UAR Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General Muhammad Fawzy, and simply stated: I gave my instructions to all UAR armed forces to be ready for action against Israel, the moment it might carry out any aggressive action against any Arab country. Due to these instructions our troops are already concentrated in Sinai on our eastern border. For the sake of complete security of all UN troops which install outposts along our borders, I request that you issue your orders to withdraw all these troops immediately. Israel was caught off guard by the "speed and relative efficiency" with which Nasser's troops were deployed across the Sinai Nasser had closed the Straits of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping Nasser pronounced the move as "an affirmation of our rights and our sovereignty over the Gulf of Aqaba. This is in our territorial waters and we shall never permit a ship flying Israeli colours to pass through this Gulf." The possibility of war with Israel did not seem to faze Nasser. He merely taunted, "Our answer to them is that we welcome war. We are ready." In response, 35,000 Israeli reservists were called up as a precautionary measure, though Abba Eban assured the United States that Israel had "no intention of taking initiatives." The build up of troops along the Israeli-UAR border,

published on other university websites shows that his writings can be seen as reliable as university websites wouldnt use them if they werent credible. There is bias within the source, mainly directed at the UNEF as Carroll is placing the blame on the UNEF for the Six Day War. Seeing as though it was Nasser that originally demanded the withdrawal, it is possible to say that there is bias against him also because he was the person that instigated the entire situation that unfolded before the 1967 war.

Michael K. Carroll, 2005. From Peace (Keeping) to War: The United Nations and the Withdrawal of the UNEF. [ONLINE] Available at http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2005/issu

This source gives details into the response/reaction of the Israelis after the announcing of the withdrawal of the UNEF from the Sinai and Gaza Strip. This means that it has relevance

Page | 22

e2/jv9no2a5.html. [Accessed 6 March 12]

while troubling, did not preclude a peaceful outcome Israelis sought to work through the UN and the Americans to persuade Nasser of the ineffectiveness of waging war against Israel Israeli fears and did not change the situation facing Israel in the Middle East

to the 4th focus question. This source is the same as the previous but I split it because it would take too long to evaluate if it was together seeing as there is more than one bias perspective. I separated it accordingly by picking out the difference sections of information with the different bias viewpoints. The bias within this section of the source is mainly in favour of the Arabs as Carroll is making it seem as though the Israelis didnt want to wage war and that they feared what Nasser would do once the UNEF departed the Sinai and Gaza Strip. This also places blame on Nasser as it makes him seem as though he wanted to instigate the war, this also being clear when Nasser states, "Our answer to them is that we welcome war. We are ready." The author of the source, Michael K. Carroll, teaches at Seiwa College, Japan. His dissertation at the University of Toronto examined the political and military aspects of Canada's involvement in the United Page | 23

Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2008. June 10, 1967: Israel After the Six Day War. [ONLINE] Available at http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts+Ab out+Israel/Israel+in+Maps/June+10+1967+Israel+After+the+Six+Day+War.htm . [Accessed 6 March 12]

Nations Emergency Force, as well as the underlying myth of Canadian peacekeeping. His work has been used on other university websites, such as the University of Calgary Press and Wilfrid Laurier University. The fact that his work has been published on other university websites shows that his writings can be seen as reliable as university websites wouldnt use them if they werent credible. In the course of the war, the Israeli forces captured the This source has relevance to the 4th Sinai peninsula, reaching the Suez Canal, and captured the focus questions as it outlines the territories of Judea and Samaria as well as the Golan impact of the Six Day War. It also contains a map that portrays the Heights - from which the Syrians had shelled Israel before and after borders of Israeli territory which can be used to explain what political and religious impacts it could have on both the Arabs and the Israelis. The bias is on favour of the Israelis as the author of the source mentions that the Israelis captured territory and then adds at the end, from which the Syrians had shelled Israel. That comes across as the author trying to make it sound as though the capture wasnt a bad thing because of what the opposition had

Page | 24

done previously. Seeing as though the source is from the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, there is no doubt going to be at least some bias in favour of their country because they see the Arabs as their opponent, I guess you could say. The reliability of this source can be questioned because of the bias that exists, but because of the fact that the information corroborates with the other sources that are relevant to the 4th focus question, it is possible to regard the source as reliable. This source outlines the impacts that the Six Day War had on the religious (and partially political) aspects of both the Arabs and the Israelis meaning that it has relevance to the 5th focus question. Because of the fact that this source has no credible author and the website isnt of legitimate quality, only being a blogging site, the reliability of the source has to be questioned. I am not going to try and justify the reliability of this source, I am only going to use it as a foundation for more research on the

R. Azoulay, 2012. Religion in the Palestine-Israel conflict since 1967. [ONLINE] Available at http://ev0lve.wordpress.com/2008/11/ 25/religion-in-the-palestine-israelconflict-since-1967/. [Accessed 9 March 12]

The Sinai Peninsula, the Golan Heights, Gaza and the West Bank were conquered and occupied by the Israeli army but at the centre of these dramatic days was the liberation or occupation, depending on the standpoint, of East Jerusalem Control over Jerusalems religious sites sacred to all three monotheistic traditions with the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank more than a million Palestinians came under Israeli control The Muslim loss of the sovereignty over the holy sites through the occupation of Jerusalem by Israel seems to have turned a regional, political conflict over territory into a religious war

Page | 25

Religious identity and symbolic became increasingly important. Not surprising then, that the Yom Kippur War in 1973 was launched on the most distinct Jewish holy day If Palestinians were granted full citizenship, within a few years the state would have an Arab majority and would cease to be Jewish in its traits, character, ethos and legislation If, on the other hand, Palestinians were denied citizenship an civil rights in order to preserve the Jewish character of the state, Israel would find itself in the uncomfortable situation of being a democracy only for Jews, and an apartheid regime for the rest of its inhabitants Israel has struggled with the definition of the territories as a frontier land that is subject to the legitimization process the settlers and their occupying behaviour have become a part of Israel and restructured how Israelis define themselves Israel is in the throes of regime occupation and so increasingly intertwined with the territories that it cannot extract itself without violence The conflict is at the intersection of the settlers desire to naturalize and justify their existence, and the fact that their project is opposed by many and will have to be abandoned or severely curtailed in order to secure a stable peace The settlement represents religious and political significance in every manner from architecture to geographical location and design

topic and to see if any other information I happen to find will support this source and its information. The author is bias against the Israelis as it is clear when the author states that the loss of the sovereignty over the holy sites was now turning into a religious battle instead of its original political battle. This is putting the blame on Israel because it says that they are the ones who changed the whole idea of the conflict. This source is relevant to the 5th focus question as it is outlining the political and economic impacts that came about after Israel claimed the territory of the Arabs. There is bias both for and against the Israelis as in one section of the source the author says that they have reconnected with their holy lands, but then in another section he says that if they continue with the claiming of land, theyll start to do it for the political/territorial gain instead of religious. Donald G. Ellis is a Professor in the

Donald G. Ellis, 2012. What is a Settlement? [ONLINE] Available at http://www.middleeastmirror.com/pea ce_and_conflict/2012/03/07/israel/wha t-is-a-settlement/. [Accessed 9 March 12]

Page | 26

Israels victory in the Six Day War in 1967 resulted in a return to holy places and thus reconnected the Israeli public with sacred places and religious feelings If Zionism drifted toward religious redemption of the land then the Palestinian population would be under the boot of occupation and Israel would evolve toward a modern Sparta focused on military expertise and overpowering a local population

School of Communication at the University of Hartford. His research interests are in the area of ethnopolitical conflict with particular emphasis on communication practices between ethnic groups in conflict. His work seeks to examine the relationship between communication, democracy, groups in political conflict, and dialogue. He has lectured widely and held a Fulbright Fellowship in Israel. With these credentials, the fact that the website it was published on (Wordpress) is partially unreliable can be put aside, not completely disregarded, but it will just lessen its value in the justification. This is because the author has a good record of historical research to back him up and he is merely using the blog to express his opinions and knowledge.

Page | 27

APPENDIX
Figure 1

Page | 28

BBC News, 2012. 1967: The Six Day War. [ONLINE] Available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_israel_palestinians/maps/html/six_day_war.stm. [Accessed 9 March 12] This map will be used to further justify the 5th focus question as it gives detail into the before and after borders of Israel territory for the Six Day War. Seeing as though it is only a map/diagram, there is no bias that can be detected as there are no words that can be interpreted as having an opinion or implicit meaning behind it. It is simply maps that are showing the before and after differences that the 1967 war brought about. The maps are from a reliable source, BBC Online (that being their television documentaries put into word form on their website) which means that the source has credible information that will be able to be used to justify the 5th focus question. Figure 2

Page | 29

Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2008. June 10, 1967: Israel After the Six Day War. [ONLINE] Available at http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts+About+Israel/Israel+in+Maps/June+10-+1967+Israel+After+the+Six+Day+War.htm. [Accessed 6 March 12] This map is relevant to the 5th focus question as it portrays the before and after borders of Israeli territory which can be used to explain what political and religious impacts it could have on both the Arabs and the Israelis. This map corroborates with Figure 1 they both share the same borders for the before and after of the 1967 war. It is from a reliable source, the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and as it is a government run website, the credibility of the source doesnt need to be questioned as anything written or published by a government has to have credibility behind their name.

Figure 3

Page | 30

Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2008. Jerusalem Before the Six Day War (19491967). [ONLINE] Available at

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts+About+Israel/Israel+in+Maps/Jerusalem+Before+the+Six+Day+War+-1949-1967-.htm. [Accessed 10 March 12]

Page | 31

This map will be used to further justify the 5th focus question as it gives detail into the before borders of Jerusalem and the territories held by the Israelis and Arabs previous to the Six Day War. Seeing as though it is only a map/diagram, there is no bias that can be detected as there are no words that can be interpreted as having an opinion or implicit meaning behind it. The maps are from a reliable source, the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs and this can be proven as the URL has .gov.il which means that it is a legitimate government website and not just a website created by a random person with possibly unreliable sources.

Figure 4 Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2008. Jerusalem After the Six Day War (1967). [ONLINE] Available at

Page | 32

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts+About+Israel/Israel+in+Maps/Jerusalem+After+the+Six+Day+War+-1967-.htm. [Accessed 10 March 12] This map will be used to further justify the 5th focus question as it gives detail into the after borders of Jerusalem and the territories held by the Israelis and Arabs after the Six Day War. Seeing as though it is only a map/diagram, there is no bias that can be detected as there are no words that can be interpreted as having an opinion or implicit meaning behind it. The maps are from a reliable source, the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs and this can be proven as the URL has .gov.il which means that it is a legitimate government website and not just a website created by a random person with possibly unreliable sources. This source is in relation to the previous map as they are the same map yet this one is just updated. They were meant to be in the same source evaluation but seeing as they have different URLs it is not possible to do so.

Page | 33