"rather than spend your time posting to me further about a book you cited" I am not sure how genuine you are being on this matter. My original quotation of Shlaim was from an article in the UK Guardian he wrote and not directly from his book. I have only mentioned him in passing since and mainly in response to your own keenness to discuss his book. Yes I might be persuaded to get a copy of his book, but not until you provide some indication as to what it is that you have found fault with. Thus far there is only a hint of suspicion and that frankly is not persuading me it is worth the trouble. As I said, make a specific case of some sort beyond innuendo then I may well get a copy of the book. When I question your sincerity on the discussion regarding the veracity of the said 'offer' it is not without good reason, such as your strange and rather amusing comment; "most (evidence) of which are not even relevant". As if the archival State Dept evidence which 'flatly contradicts' your position is somehow "not relevant", and as if Sec of State Rusk's recollections are of less merit than Ebans. How so? Maybe you meant to say 'not convenient'? If something is said which is both verifiable and infers that no offer was ever made to the Arabs, it not credible to say it is "not relevant", merely convenient for someone whose mind is made up regardless.
5 wounded Syrians rushed to northern Israeli hospital (Haaretz)
from the article: Netanyahu should admit Israel doesn't want peace