I came to the understand that with a prolonged conflict like this it was mainly due to ideological differences. To establish the prioritisation of causes I understood wider context, that that came before the creation of Israel and after the Six Day War to understand what causes had lasting effects and influence. With that in mind, I came to the conclusion that the election of Nasser exacerbated Pan-Arab intensions and heightened tensions. My thesis placed most significance on competing nationalism, hence the actions that surged nationalism held significance.
I wrote my EE in sections. I would proofread my work weeks after, through doing this I realised the subliminal bias I had towards Israel. Specifically, with Nasser, at first, I viewed and wrote about him with a negative tone. In order to change this, I widened my sources to more Arabian Historians. I had read the demonisation of Nasser by western-historians but also was able to see him in a favourable light with Arabian-perspective. I was able to change my narrative to be as nonpartisan as possible.
With regards to methodology, it changed greatly. I now understand the significance of looking for resources not only from both sides but also from international sources, who aren’t ‘stakeholders’ within the conflict. This taught me about the bias present in every piece of work and how immensely important it is to identify this bias before you are subliminally indoctrinated to view an issue with this bias. I realised the importance of forming your own judgment based on facts.