Although Source C is very one sided it does have use for the study of American reactions to the six-day war. The source shows that nearly all of America fully supported the Israelis. The concert was fund raising for the Israelis and many famous people either from music; television and film supported their cause. This I believe was due to the fact that a lot of these famous people were either Jewish, sympathetic to the Jewish cause or didn’t like Arabs. The US government had to help the Israelis or at least show they supported them by sending politicians to the concert due to America having so many Jews in its population.
Source D tells the Arabs and the Israelis that not only have they got their own country and cultural differences as a problem. Now they also have something else to think about, the homeless, the people who have lost their homes due to the fighting and how no more fighting will solve the problem, only new energy and peace negotiations. The American president is trying to show that now all that will make this situation better is peace and respect for each other. I think source D affects the values between the two opposing sides quit well showing that war will not improve the situation any further and that its time for peace and negotiations to start.
I think that Source E does and doesn’t show that the Israelis listened to the Presidents view from Source D. As it shows a meeting between an important Israeli general and Palestinian Arab leaders, meaning the Israelis also thought that fighting would make the situation worse. And the only way to prevent it getting worse was by talking to the opposition and agreeing on some kind of seize fire or even the start of a piece process. But on the other hand the Arabs might of called this meeting instead meaning that they either wanted the same thing or wanted what was once theirs back this meaning the land captured by the Israelis during the war. But a photograph could mean anything and show a number of different views, all it really does show is the two sides meeting but it doesn’t necessarily mean that either side agreed, disagreed or that anything was accomplished during the meeting.
Sources F and G both have interpretations that differ but use similar evidence this I think is due to both the authors looking at different aspects of the situation. Source F shows that the Jews are not willing to negotiate and are trying to pull the same trick as in 1948 when they discouraged the Arabs to stay there by destroying the Arab villages and building there own thus laying claim to that land. This making the Arabs more argumentative as they believe that this will be done again but inside the land captured by the Israelis during the war, and so they will never get this land back. Source G suggests attempts to solve the Palestinian problem, due to the Arabs realising that war is a waste of time and lives, and the Jews now willing to talk as they feel more secure behind their new easily defended borders. Thus the sources provide a general answer as to why there might be argument, but no detailed explanation of the arguments that took place or why there was progress in the talks that did take place. Source G also suggests that the war brought the worlds attention to the Arabs cause but actually the US was not prepared to help the P.L.O and its activities, and the USSR was also not prepared to help the Arabs, as they wanted independence. The US did however enter the peace talks and helped the Arabs but only due to the end of communism and the fall of the USSR.
The six-day war and its consequences would have a dramatic affect on the future of the Arabs. The Introduction explains how the loss of land and rights and creation of refugee camps helps us to understand why there might be argument about the future of the Arabs. This is because Palestinian attempts to negotiate fail and the Israelis refusal in returning land is great. The role of the superpowers (UK, US on the Jews side, USSR on the Arabs.) Involve talks and are places for long gain to be played. The sources are also useful in helping us understand why there was argument about the future of the Arabs, Sources A and B show the Arabs loss of land and homes, refugee camps and the Arabs being defeated. Source C shows the US helping the Jews and suggests no solution to the Arab problem. Any discussion continued shows no one helping the Arabs and no need for argument because the US will not do anything. Source D however shows the USA’s desire for peace due to the oil prices going up. Then in source E the talks are in progress. Sources F and G show some progress in one area (Palestine), and nothing but argument in the other (Captured land in the war.) These sources and introduction I think don’t help in trying to understand why there was so much argument about the future of Palestinian Arabs. As there is not enough detail about the Palestinian Arabs or Palestine for that matter to understand why so much argument was created in the first place.
THE ARAB-ISRAELI CONFLICT
By Jamie Robinson
