The New York businessman wasn’t the casino mogul's first choice for president, but Adelson concludes that he 'will be good for Israel.'08:23 06.05.16 | 0 comments
The archival evidence you regard as 'a sliver' is substantial and pertinent unlike your dismissal of Shlaims sources without elaboration. It is precise minutes of the discussions between Israeli ambassador and Eban himself with the Sec of State and other officials. It is possible to examine these archives online. Shlaim did it. If you think they are unimportant or not relevant you are either insincere or drunk. I am not wasting my time with the Shlaim book simply because you regard Shlaims sources as unreliable("one of the problems is the Egyptian and Syrian officials"). Prove they are unreliable. I do not need to have the book in front of me for you to take a few lines to do that. This is obfuscation. What is clear is that Eban's own later account is unreliable. This is why. "Eban stated Israeli inter-ministerial committee had come to some TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS which he would like to discuss with Secretary BUT NOT OTHERS" New York, June 22, 1967 "We`ve changed our minds". Abba Eban to Dean Rusk late summer, on Israels earlier professed denial of any territorial claims. Contextualize at your leisure.Not only Shlaim but Kimmerling who offers other references and ben ami have seen enough to cast doubt on Ebans unsubstantiated claim.