Rabbinical courts to stop automatically placing financial burden on divorced fathers.02:39 02.12.15 | 0 comments
The archival evidence 'a sliver' is substantial unlike your dismissal of Shlaims sources without any elaboration. It is precise minutes of the discussions between Israeli ambassador and Eban himself with the Sec of State and other officials as opposed to your innuendo. 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 getting hold of 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. Utter nonsense. What is clear is that Eban's own later account is unreliable. This is why, (repeated here because you never once addressed it other than to dismiss it). "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, but you are starting to sound desperate. Not only Shlaim but Kimmerling and ben ami have seen enough to cast considerable doubt on Ebans unsubstantiated claim. I have seen quite enough of your flimsy defence of it.