Looking at where this source came from, (a history book), my primary opinion would be that the author should place no blame at all on either parties detailed in his writings. The purpose of a history book is not to put forward the opinions of the writer, but to display the facts and events of the time period in question. However, as is most common nowadays, books such as these can be used by governments as propaganda, and for all I know the author could be extremely biased. Then, the date should give a further clue before any of the material in question has even been read. Although written nine years after the Six Day War of June 1967, this extract can hardly be deemed to have been written in hind sight, as the hostility between the Arabs and Israelis was still present at the time of its publication.
If the author was someone who was not totally impartial, perhaps they had relatives on one of the opposing factions or were themselves members, then in such a time of heated emotions, ones anger might begin to affect the impartiality of your writing, whether deliberate or subconsciously.Upon reading the article, you notice that it is very fairly set out into two sections, the Israelis reasons for going to war, and the Arabs. You are told in the first paragraph that the Arab powers were threatening her (Israel) with destruction and were ready to attack her as well as Egypt had already closed the Gulf of Akaba which she knew Israel would regard as an act of war. Also, the writer states Israel could not afford to let the Arabs strike first for she was too weak and too vulnerable.
In the second paragraph, that for the reasons of the Arabs, you are told, The Arabs say that Israel should not have been in existence at all, and that Israel had to go to war to save its economy and to ward off political instability. This all seems very diplomatic, but the first thing that struck me was that Israel had roughly three reasons put forward, as opposed to the Arabs two. The writer says that it comes down to whether in the first paragraph, implying that you should draw your own opinion from the information that he has put forward in his book. I believe that he is trying to sway your opinion to the side of the Israelis by means of clever wording. Notice how the author refers to Israel as she, but the Arabs as they. Why did he not call the people from Israel Israelis instead of referring to them by their country? This would have made more sense, as he had already called the Arab countries Arabs. This suggests a closeness with Israel, using a more formal term for the country, whilst giving the Arabians the possibly slightly impolite label of Arabs.
Also it is interesting to see how the Israelis do the claiming whereas the Arabs do the saying. This could be a clever way of implying Arab over confidence in their ideas, and Israels more political approach. This is the same approach that cost them the Six Day War. In the fourth sentence, the author uses a somewhat slang In any case to mention the Egyptians closing the Gulf of Akaba. It is more a phrase used in speech rather than writing, and implies an excuse is being given.
Is the author trying to give excuses for Israels involvement in the War? I believe that he is. The rather simple way that the last sentence is written in is unlike the writer. If he had put did unite instead of united then the sentence would have done more than just tell you a few facts, it would have also reinforced the previous point that as a direct result of the war the Israelis gained a large amount of aid from the US. However, being on the side of the Israelis, he does not want you to do this and therefore tries to disassociate the two sentences as much as possible. He also says there is some support for this view in regards to the view that Israel went to war for internal financial and political reasons, the some implying that he is not one of those few. I believe that the author of this book blames the Arabs more than the Israelis.
He admits that the Israelis were in part responsible for the war because they made the first attack, and a little of the blame must be given to them for this reason, but not much. I think that he is biased and shows favoritism towards the Israelis.2.This cartoon shows a Jew surrounded by Arab cannons about to be blown into the sea. The message of this cartoon is quite simple; soon the Israelis will be destroyed.