It's ironic but also appropriate that an Egyptian specialist has written a definitive defense of the revolutionary character of ancient Hebrew monotheism (contra the "evolutionary" view that monotheism is a "natural" development of polytheism, via the recognition that "all gods are one") His key claim, here and in his other books, is what he calls the "Mosaic distinction," that Mosaic monotheism divides the world into good and evil, true worship and idolatry, the one, only true God and false idols. The truth of this claim should be apparent to readers of Homer. Homer doesn't demonize either side of the Trojan war. There are no "good guys" and "bad guys" as such, just more or less flawed yet heroic warriors (as well as priests, women, children, parents, gods, etc.)
The larger question is whether the Mosaic distinction fosters more religious violence than otherwise. He considers both sides without taking a definite stand. He does claim, however, that monotheism taken rightly should critique religious violence. Frankly, I found the issue of violence to be a side issue and more or less a concession to a sensational topic after 9/11.
Assmann really knows the Egyptian and Near Eastern polytheistic background to Judaism, and the key differences between them. For example, in polytheistic religions, the King stood in for god and administered justice. Also, the legal system was separate from religious cultic practices. In Judaism, justice is integrated deeply into religion, with the prophets constantly denigrating sacrifice in favor of taking care of orphans and widows etc. At the same time, the Hebrew God doesn't support the institution of kingship but just the opposite.
Overall, the book is full of valuable insights. I don't agree with some of his points, but his work is mostly solid and well-nigh essential for scholars writing on this period. It is also of interest for anyone who is seriously interested in monotheism (Judaism, Christianity, Islam).