Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Historically, and to a considerable extent currently, Israels official line has been
that despite persistent attempts to make peace with its Arab neighbors there was no
THE MYTH
On the face of it, the Israeli cabinet resolution 563 of June 19, 1967 was both
magnanimous and bold. It proposed peace accords based on the international
Diplomatic History, Vol. 37, No. 1 (2013). The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University
Press on behalf of the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations. All rights reserved.
For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com. doi:10.1093/dh/dhs004
85
86 : d i p l o m a t i c h i s t o r y
borders and the security needs of Israelwhich arguably meant the return by
Israel of the recently occupied Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights to Egypt and
Syria, respectivelyin exchange for full demilitarization of these areas; guarantee
of freedom of maritime passage in the Straits of Tiran, the Gulf of Aqaba and the
Suez Canal, and of overflight rights in the Straits of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba;
and a guarantee of noninterference with the flow of water from the sources of the
River Jordan.1 After its adoption, the resolution was promptly cabled to Foreign
Until a peace treaty with Egypt is signed, Israel will continue to keep the territories it
currently holds.
B. Syria:
Israel proposes to sign a peace treaty with Syria based on the international border and the
security needs of Israel.
The peace treaty will require:
(1) Demilitarization of the Syrian Plateau [Golan Heights] now held by IDF troops;
(2) An absolute guarantee of non-interference with the flow of water from the sources
of the River Jordan to Israel.
Until a peace treaty with Syria is signed, Israel will continue to keep the territories it
currently holds.
D. Refugees:
(1) Establishing peace in the Middle East with the concomitant regional cooperation
will open opportunities for an international and regional settlement of the refugee
problem;
(2) To defer the discussion of ways to settle the refugee problem.
Israeli Cabinet Resolution of June 19, 1967 : 87
Minister Abba Eban in New York, who was attending the Emergency Special
Session of the United Nations General Assembly. Eban relates in his autobiog-
raphy that he was authorized to communicate Israels terms for peace to the United
States for transmission to Arab governments.2
On the evening of June 21, Eban was received by Secretary of State Dean Rusk
at the latters Waldorf Towers suite in New York. Undersecretary Eugene
Rostow, Assistant Secretary Joseph Sisco and U.S. Ambassador to the United
Nations Arthur Goldberg were also present. I outlined Israels proposals for
final peace, Eban recalls in his autobiography, and then he goes on: I could
2. Israels Position in the Special Session of the UN [General] Assembly on the Middle East
Crisis
(a) The Foreign Ministers speech at the [General] Assembly will mention only the
demand to sign peace treaties with the neighboring countries, and will indicate that
a return to the situation prior to 5.6.67 is inconceivable.
(b) If the Foreign Minister deems fit, he is authorized to mention the subject of the
refugees as formulated in article 1(D) above.
(c) In secret talks with representatives of the United States, the Foreign Minister is
authorized to detail Israels position regarding the territories it is holding, in accord-
ance with decision 1(A-D) above.
2. Abba Eban, An Autobiography (London, 1978), 43536.
3. Ibid., 436.
4. Abba Eban, Truth and legend about peace initiatives, Davar (Tel Aviv), May 23, 1982.
5. Transcript of Ebans interview (conducted on January 29, 1997) for The Fifty Years War:
Israel and the Arabs, a BBC six-part program (broadcast in 1998), GB165-0346, Middle East Centre
Archive, St. Antonys College, Oxford (MECA).
6. Eban, An Autobiography, 436.
88 : d i p l o m a t i c h i s t o r y
played backward in the projector,7 and President Johnson had quipped: You
Israelis suggested withdrawal and peace; the Arabs agreed to fifty percent of
your proposalsthey accepted the withdrawal part.8 With these quotations,
attributed to two key American figures, Eban sealed his account of Egypt and
Syrias intransigence, and a myth was born.
At the heart of the myth lies the assumption that resolution 563 was indeed
magnanimous and offered Egypt and Syria all the lands they had lost in the war
(barring the Gaza Strip, which Egypt did not consider as part of its own territory).
This assumption is wrong. The resolutions text proposes peace accords based on
Already during the war, when the magnitude of the victory became clear, the
triumphant Israelis insisted on permanent peace treaties with their Arab neighbors
to replace the armistice agreements in effect since 1949. After 19 years of
7. Ibid.
8. Transcript of Ebans lecture, delivered at Moshe Dayan Center, Tel Aviv University,
March 19, 1986, 18, Moshe Dayan Center Library (MDCL).
9. Cabinet resolution 563, articles 1(A) and 1(B). Authors emphasis.
10. Ebans comments in minutes, Knesset Foreign Affairs and Security Committee (KFASC)
session, June 17, 1969, 7, A/8162/5, ISA. Even when discussing the generous offer in his auto-
biography, Eban says that peace treaties with Egypt and Syria should be based on the former
international boundaries with changes for Israels security. Eban, An Autobiography, 436. Quotation
marks in the original; authors emphasis.
11. Minutes, cabinet session, June 19, 1967 (3 p.m.), 3-23, A/8164/9, Israel State Archives,
Jerusalem (ISA).
12. Quoted in Amos Shifris, Yisrael Galili: Shomer ha-Massad ve-Noteh ha-Kav [Hebrew]
(Ramat Efal, Israel, 2010), 276.
Israeli Cabinet Resolution of June 19, 1967 : 89
independence, the Israeli leadership was determined to exploit the outcome of the
war to achieve recognized and secure borders that would be very different from the
hitherto provisional Green Line demarcation.13 The memory of the Sinai
Campaign of 1956 was still painfully fresh. Israels armed forces had then swiftly
captured the entire Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip, but heavy pressure from
both superpowers forced them to withdraw. The United States sweetened its
demand with a pledge that any attempt to block the free passage of Israeli shipping
through the Straits of the Tiranas the Egyptians had done before the 1956
hostilitieswould be regarded by Washington as a casus belli, to which Israel
13. See, for example, Prime Minister Eshkols statement in the Israeli parliament: The Knesset
Proceedings, June 12, 1967, 232731 (specifically 2330). For English version, see Henry M.
Christman, ed., The State Papers of Levi Eshkol (New York, 1969), 11734 (specifically 13132).
14. See Avi Shlaim, The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World (London, 2000), 17885, 23741.
15. See Anatoly Dobrynin, In Confidence: Moscows Ambassador to Americas Six Cold War
Presidents (1962-1986) (New York, 1995), 161.
16. UN document A/6717, June 13, 1967.
90 : d i p l o m a t i c h i s t o r y
policy.17 The pressing task at hand was dealing with the Soviet demarche at the
United Nations. This required McGeorge Bundy, the committees executive sec-
retary and special consultant to the president, to find out from the Israelis what
they were up to. The Americans were expected to side with the Jewish state in the
forthcoming skirmish at the United Nations, and Bundy urged the Israelis to
convey their ideas for a Middle East settlement without delay.18 Israel, then, had
to set out its peace terms; that is to say, to decide the fate of the territorial acqui-
sitions of the war.
The pressure from Washington prompted hectic deliberations in the top ech-
17. For the establishment of the committee, see Foreign Relations of the United States,
1964-1968 (FRUS), Vol. 19: Arab-Israeli Dispute, 1967-1968 (Washington, DC, 2004), documents
149 and 194.
18. See Ebans comments in minutes, cabinet session, June 11, 1967, 6667, A/8164/6, ISA;
and minutes, KFASC session, June 15, 1967, 79, A/8161/7, ISA; Yigal Allon, oral history inter-
view, third meeting, May 21, 1979, 18, A/5001/19, ISA.
19. Yaacov Herzogs diary, June 13, 1967, A/4511/3, ISA.
20. Minutes, cabinet sessions, June 18, 1967 (morning), A/8164/6; June 18, 1967 (afternoon),
A/8164/7; June 19, 1967 (morning and afternoon), A/8164/8; June 19, 1967 (3 p.m.), A/8164/
9all in ISA. For a discussion of the deliberations that preceded the plenary sessions of the
cabinet, see Avi Raz, The Bride and the Dowry: Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinians in the Aftermath
of the June 1967 War (New Haven, CT, 2012), 3944.
21. Minutes, June 18 (afternoon), 63, 65, 71.
Israeli Cabinet Resolution of June 19, 1967 : 91
Yigal Allon stated.22 There was a consensus about the annexation of the Jordanian
sector of Jerusalem23 and keeping the Gaza Strip, which before the war had been
under Egyptian military rule. The main argument revolved around the West Bank
which had been taken from Jordan and was consideredlike the Gaza Stripan
integral part of the Land of Israel (Erets Yisrael), and the refugee problem. Deep
differences prevented the cabinet from reaching an agreement on these issues, and
consequently it was decided to defer discussion. In contrast, Egypts Sinai
Peninsula and Syrias Golan Heights did not present unbridgeable difficulties,24
and eventually the cabinet passed the resolution unanimously. But there is nothing
was just a foreign policy maneuver came from the author of the myth himself. On
May 24, 1968, during a discussion at the prime ministers office, Abba Eban
referred to the June 19 resolution and the motives for its adoption. Anticipating
a difficult fight at the United Nations against the Soviet draft resolution designed
to force Israel to withdraw unconditionally from the territories it had occupied in
the war, and wishing the United States to prevent its adoption, the cabinet con-
vened and we thought what we should say on the issue of peace. In his char-
acteristically convoluted style Eban explained that the cabinet had endeavored to
give the Americans something that would motivate them to thwart the Soviet drive
Classified top secret, resolution 563 was kept a closely guarded secret even
from Lieutenant General Yitzhak Rabin. The armys chief of staff learned about it
only months later from telegrams that had been sent to the Israeli embassy in
Washington and which he read after shedding his uniform and taking up his am-
bassadorial post in the American capital in early 1968.33 Foreign Minister Eban, on
the other hand, was immediately informed. In his autobiography Eban relates that
he was surprised by the spacious approach which Eshkol had empowered him to
communicate to the United States for transmission to Arab governments.34 As
we have seen, the resolution was adopted at the urging of the United States with
the aim of encouraging Washington to defend Israel in the diplomatic arena, but it
may be argued that Eban went beyond the cabinets instructions and suggested to
his American interlocutors that they should regard the resolution as a peace pro-
posal to be passed on to Cairo and Damascus for their consideration and response.
30. Minutes, The meeting with Lt. Gen. Rabin, May 24, 1968, 1516, A/7938/11, ISA.
31. Minutes, KFASC session, May 29, 1968, 17, A/8161/12, ISA.
32. Minutes, KFASC session, November 19, 1968, 6, A/8162/2, ISA. Authors emphasis. In
fact, Eban told the KFASC as early as September 1967 that Israel had shared its thoughts regarding
a settlement solely with the United States. See his comments in minutes, KFASC session,
September 8, 1967, 15, A/8161/8, ISA.
33. Rabins comments in minutes, KFASC session, May 29, 1968, 6, 8, A/8161/12, ISA. In his
autobiography, which was first published in 1979, Rabin says that he learned from American
sources about the June 19 resolution after he had become Israels ambassador to Washington.
Yitzhak Rabin, The Rabin Memoirs, expanded ed. (Berkeley, CA, 1996), 135. It seems more likely,
however, that Rabins contemporary version is the correct one.
34. Eban, An Autobiography, 43536.
Israeli Cabinet Resolution of June 19, 1967 : 93
But the available American and Israeli records of Ebans contacts in the U.S. rule
out such an interpretation.
On June 20 Eban met McGeorge Bundy and most of the discussion was about
Jordan. More generally, Bundy said that the United States thought that Israel
should withdraw from the territories it had occupied in the war but for obvious
reasons America was unable to announce this position publicly as long as the
Soviet demand for an immediate and unconditional withdrawal was still under
discussion at the Emergency Special Session of the United Nations General
Assembly.35 The next day, Eban saw Secretary of State Rusk. Rusk was the chair-
35. Evron, Washington, to Foreign Ministry, Jerusalem (telegram 227), June 21, 1967, A/
7938/10, ISA.
36. Rusk, New York, to State Department, June 22, 1967, POL 27 ARAB-ISR, RG 59,
Central Files 196769, Box 1796, National Archives at College Park (USNA). The paper was
reproduced in FRUS 19, document 314.
37. Eban, New York, to Foreign Ministry, Jerusalem, for the PM, June 22, 1967, A/7938/10,
ISA.
94 : d i p l o m a t i c h i s t o r y
38. Gideon Rafael, Destination Peace: Three Decades of Israeli Foreign Policy: A Personal Memoir
(London, 1981), 178. Interestingly, Rafael uses similar language to Ebans.
39. David Korn, Stalemate: The War of Attrition and Great Power Diplomacy in the Middle East,
1967-1970 (Boulder, CO, 1992), 14, and n. 13 on 288.
40. Following their defeat, Egypt and Syria severed their diplomatic relations with the United
States.
41. Research Project 976: United States Peace Efforts. . ., February 1973, RG 59 Executive
Secretariat, Historical Office Research Projects, 196974, Box 6, USNA.
Israeli Cabinet Resolution of June 19, 1967 : 95
found they almost certainly do not exist, and hence the Israeli so-called peace
proposal was not conveyed to the Arabs.
More circumstantial evidence is offered by the American diplomatic contacts in
the wake of the EbanRusk rendezvous of June 21. Two days later Undersecretary
of State Eugene Rostow, one of the officials present at the meeting, saw the British
ambassador in Washington and received him again on June 27. On both occasions
Rostow outlined what Rusk had heard from Eban. [T]he Israelis have told the
Americans in strict secrecy of the position they intend to take over frontiers,
Ambassador Sir Patrick Dean reported to London, adding that Rostow found
42. Memorandum of conversation: Rostow et al. and Dean et al., June 23, 1967, FRUS 19,
document 322; Dean, Washington, to Foreign Office, London, June 23 and 27, 1967 (telegrams
2145 and 2180, respectively)both in FCO/17/503, National Archives, London. Quotation from
Deans June 27 cable; authors emphasis.
43. Goldberg, New York, June 22, 1967, FRUS 19, document 315.
44. Bundy to President, June 22, 1967, FRUS 14: The Soviet Union (Washington, DC, 2001),
document 225.
96 : d i p l o m a t i c h i s t o r y
45. For the JohnsonKosygin talks at the Glassboro summit and relating records see FRUS 14,
documents 22937. See also editorial notes, FRUS 19, documents 320, 323.
46. Memorandum of conversation: JohnsonKosygin, June 25, 1967, 1:503:05pm, document
234.
47. This paragraph is chiefly based on, and quotations are taken from, memorandum of con-
versation, JohnsonKosygin, June 23, 11:30 am to 13:30 pm, document 229; Record of the
Presidents Debriefing, June 23, document 230; transcript of telephone conversation between
President Johnson and former President Eisenhower, June 25, document 237all in FRUS 14;
Lyndon Baines Johnson, The Vantage Point: Perspectives of the Presidency 1963-1969 (London,
1972), 484.
48. Cabinet resolution 95, October 31, 1968, ICS; Raz, The Bride and the Dowry, 7778,
13839, 188, 259, 270.
Israeli Cabinet Resolution of June 19, 1967 : 97
Arab rejection.49 Upon learning of the new resolution Washington accused Israel
of reneging on its June 1967 position. The Israelis countered that it was the U.S.
position that had changed. State Department officials were quick to refute the
Israeli claim. An internal memorandum reminded Secretary of State Rusk in
December 1968 that [t]he earliest authoritative statement of Israeli thinking on
specific territorial issues had been conveyed to him by Eban on June 21, 1967, and
gave a detailed summary of what Eban had said then.50 Both the Johnson admin-
istration and the succeeding Nixon administration became increasingly dismayed
by the growing Israeli intransigence that contributed greatly to the impasse in the
49. Minutes, cabinet sessions, October 31, 1968, (morning) and October 31, 1968 (evening),
obtained privately.
50. Hart to Secretary, December 12, 1968, POL 27 ARAB-ISR, RG 59, Central Files
196769, Box 1815, USNA.
51. Rabins comments in minutes, KFASC session, May 20, 1969, 15, A/8162/5, ISA.
52. Memorandum of conversation, JohnsonKosygin, June 25, 3:206:09 pm, document 235.
98 : d i p l o m a t i c h i s t o r y
United Nations. It looks as if the loquacious Eban, while attempting to win the
Latin Americans over, told them more than he should have. The absence of the
resolutions other and no less crucial points from the report Kosygin read to
Johnsonnotably free Israeli navigation in the Gulf of Aqaba and the Suez
Canalrule out the possibility that the premier was relying on an Israeli peace
proposal that had been transmitted to the Arabs.
Nor is there confirmation from Egypt and Syria that they received any Israeli
offer of withdrawal in late June 1967, quite the contrary. No such proposal
reached us, insisted Salah Bassiouny of the Egyptian Foreign Ministry in an
53. Transcript of Bassiounys interview (conducted on February 25, 1997) for The Fifty Years
War: Israel and the Arabs, a BBC six-part program (broadcast in 1998), GB165-0346, MECA. In 1967
Ambassador Bassiouny was a special assistant in the office of the Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs.
54. Transcript of Ismail Fahmis interview with Professor Avi Shlaim, September 17, 1982,
Cairo. I am grateful to Prof. Shlaim for sharing with me this and other interviews he conducted.
55. See editorial note, FRUS 19, document 320.
56. Memorandum of conversation: RuskGromyko, June 23, 1967, FRUS 19, document 321.
Premier Kosygin mentioned Fawzis talk with Rusk several times in the course of his morning
meeting with President Johnson on June 23 with no reference to any Israeli peace proposal. See
memorandum of conversation, JohnsonKosygin, June 23, 11:30 am to 13:30 pm, document 229;
Record of the Presidents Debriefing, June 23, document 230both in FRUS 14.
57. Rusk, New York, to State Department, June 27, 1967, FRUS 19, document 327.
Israeli Cabinet Resolution of June 19, 1967 : 99
exchange for an EgyptianIsraeli peace agreement. Heikal places the alleged offer
sometime between the end of the hostilities and the summit of the Arab rulers in
the Sudanese capital Khartoum (29 August to 1 September 1967). The Egyptian
journalist, whose myriad publications do not have a reputation for accuracy, does
not elaborate and provides no source.58 In view of what Eban told the Latin
Americans (as quoted by Kosygin), it is however very likely that by then Nasser
knew about Israels declared lack of territorial appetite as regards Egypt. In his
speech at the Khartoum summit Nasser allegedly revealedaccording to the U.S.
ambassador to Saudi Arabia, relying on two Saudi contactswhat a senior
58. Mohamed Heikal, Secret Channels: The Inside Story of Arab-Israeli Peace Negotiations
(London: HarperCollins, 1996), 13233. Heikal was approached twice about his claim, in 2005
and in 2007, and did not respond either time. Commenting on Heikals writings, Walter
Laqueur cautions: As a historical source his revelations have to be read with the greatest of
care. Laqueur, Confrontation: The Middle-East War and World Politics (London, 1974), 14 (n.).
59. Text of cable from Ambassador Eilts (Jidda, 896), September 5, 1967, NSF/Country
File/Jordan, Memos & Misc., Vol. IV, 5/67-2/68, Box 147, Lyndon B. Johnson Library, Austin,
TX. Nasser said that the Indian government had informed him about this.
60. See, for example, the accounts of the secretary-general of the Egyptian Presidency, and
Egypts Foreign Minister, who both accompanied Nasser to the summit: Abdel Magid Farid,
Nasser: The Final Years (Reading, PA, 1994), 5567; Mahmoud Riad, The Struggle for Peace in the
Middle East (London, 1981), 5357 (respectively). In this context it is worth noting that when King
Faisal of Saudi Arabia disclosed at the summit that he had met the American ambassador imme-
diately before his departure for Khartoum, Nasser asked him what he and the ambassador had
discussed. By God, he did not tell me anything, the King replied. Farid, Nasser, 59.
61. Minutes, KFASC session, June 21, 1968, 56, A/8161/12, ISA.
100 : d i p l o m a t i c h i s t o r y
reiterated this point. He told the Foreign Affairs and Security Committee that
according to UN peace envoy Gunnar Jarring, Egypts Foreign Minister Riad had
said that Cairo might become more forthcoming regarding negotiations, if it knew
what recognized and secure border the Israelis had in mind. The Americans,
Eban added, felt that the Arabs demand was reasonable.62
Having established that the Israeli generous peace offer of June 19 was never
offered to Egypt and Syria and therefore was not rejected by them, the obvious
1969, Eban quotes a passage from Goldbergs speech at the General Assembly on
June 20, 1967 in which the American diplomat ridiculed the Russian move: The
Soviet proposal is as follows: Israel, withdraw your troops, and let everything go
back to exactly where it was before the fighting began on 5 June. In other words,
the film is to be run backward through the projector to that point in the early
morning of 5 June when hostilities had not yet broken out.65 More crucially,
Ebans reporting to the cabinet and other top-level forums was occasionally in-
accurate. Dr. Herzog, Eshkols right-hand man, confided to his diary more than
once that Eban gave untrue information, including his accounts of sensitive meet-
65. Abba Eban, Live or Perish (unpublished manuscript, 1969), 389. I am grateful to Dr.
Ami Gluska for providing me with this manuscript.
66. See, for example, Herzogs diary, From June 12 till 20 July 1968, 2, 4; 6869, A/4511/4,
ISA. Herzogs distrust of Ebans statements and telegrams was also observed by his biographer.
See Michael Bar-Zohar, Yaacov Herzog: A Biography (London, 2005), 311. In a book about
the events leading to the Six Day War, Bar-Zohar himself accuses Eban of giving the cabinet
inaccurate reports of his conversations with President Charles de Gaulle of France and
President Johnson in late May 1967. Michel Bar-Zohar, Histoire secre`te de la guerre dIsrael
(Paris, 1968), 16162. Although Premier Eshkol publicly defended Eban (The Knesset
Proceedings, December 9, 1968, 6023), and Eban venomously stated that Bar Zohar was the
type of man for whom lying is a profession, a hobby and a custom. (Jerusalem Post, December 8,
1968), no libel suit was ever filed.
67. Interviews with Meir Amit, April 14, 2003, 87, and June 2, 2003, 134, oral history
project, Yitzhak Rabin Center for Israel Studies, Tel Aviv; Meir Amit, Rosh be-Rosh: Mabat Ishi
al Eruim Gdolim u-Farshiyot Aalumot [Hebrew] (Or Yehudah, Israel, 1999), 239; Rabin, The Rabin
Memoirs, 95.
68. Rabin, The Rabin Memoirs, 135. Authors emphasis.
102 : d i p l o m a t i c h i s t o r y
Ebans first version was delivered from the podium of the Knesset in December
1977.69 In the previous month Egypts President Anwar al-Sadat had launched his
dramatic peace initiative in a historic visit to Jerusalem, and the Israeli parliament
debated the Begin governments peace terms. Eban, now in opposition, supported
the return of Sinai to Egypt and attempted to take some credit for the concept: On
the morrow of the 1967 War . . . the cabinet of the time authorized me to propose to
Egypt a peace treaty, based on the erstwhile international border and Israels security
needs, and a special agreement regarding Sharm al-Sheikh. Eban added that even
though the cabinet had retracted the proposal later on, it has remained stuck in
69. In fact, Ebans first known version was given almost two years before, in early 1976, but it
became public only in 2003. In this version Eban talked about Israels far-reaching proposals that
had been made to Egypt and Syria through the United States in June 1967, but he did not mention
any Arab response. Avi Shlaim, Interview with Abba Eban, 11 March 1976, Israel Studies 8, no. 1
(2003): 157.
70. The Knesset Proceedings, December 28, 1977, 978. Authors emphasis.
71. Minutes, cabinet session, October 31, 1968 (evening), 5.
Israeli Cabinet Resolution of June 19, 1967 : 103
72. Eban, Truth and legend about peace initiatives, Davar, May 23, 1982. For the text of the
Khartoum summits resolutions see Fuad A. Jabber, ed., International Documents on Palestine, 1967
(Beirut, Lebanon, 1970), 65657. The Arabic term sulh means peace in its deepest sense;
reconciliation.
73. Abba Eban, An opportunity squandered? Jewish Chronicle, Colour Magazine, June 26,
1987. Entitled Israels Dilemmas: An Opportunity Squandered, the same article is reprinted in
The Impact of the Six-Day War: A Twenty-Year Assessment, ed. Stephen J. Roth (Basingstoke, UK,
1988), 2229 (quotation on 2425).
74. Eban, Personal Witness, 446; see also 49394.
75. Transcript of Ebans interview (conducted on January 29, 1997) for The Fifty Years War:
Israel and the Arabs, a BBC six-part program (broadcast in 1998), GB165-0346, MECA. Authors
emphases.
76. In yet another version, Eban gives the false impression that the June 19 resolution included
the Allon Plan that dealt with Jordans West Bank. Furthermore, this version argues that the Arab
position was that they wanted 100 percent of the [occupied] territories and would give zero percent
of peacean utterly untrue statement as regards King Hussein. Abba Eban, The New Diplomacy:
International Affairs in the Modern Age (London, 1983), 224. In 1986 Eban outlined the myth in a
104 : d i p l o m a t i c h i s t o r y
being the foreign minister in 1967, was in charge of apprising his government of
the diplomatic steps regarding the June 19 decision. He was entrusted with con-
veying the substance of resolution 563 to the Washington, and any Arab response
would have been transmitted to the Israeli cabinet by the Americans through him.
In other words, had there been such transmission and Arab response, Eban would
have been the source of his governments knowledge of them. The few accounts by
contemporary Israeli players that seemingly support Ebans myth are therefore not
credible because their authors inevitably relied on what they had been told by
Eban.
lecture delivered at Tel Aviv University, and said that he did not know of any study about the way
the Israeli proposals had been treated in Cairo, except some reference in a book by Mahmoud Riad,
Egypts foreign minister in 1967, to the fact that the Egyptians had duly noted the matter. The
Soviets, Eban claimed further, had assured the Egyptians that the USSR would get them a better
deal and thus had urged Cairo to decline. Transcript of Ebans lecture, delivered at Moshe Dayan
Center, Tel Aviv University, March 19, 1986, 18, MDCL. There is no such reference in Riads
book (The Struggle for Peace in the Middle East), and not a shred of evidence to corroborate Ebans
claim about the Soviet advice.
77. Mordechai Gazit, Political Lessons, in Dapei Elazar 10: Esrim Shanah le-Milhemet
Sheshet ha-Yamim [Hebrew] (Tel Aviv, 1988), 57. Dayan was working on his autobiography in
197475.
78. Moshe Dayan, Story of My Life (London, 1976), 362.
79. Moshe Dayan, Breakthrough: A Personal Account of the Egypt-Israel Peace Negotiations
(London, 1981), 172. Dayan does not mention any response from Sadat on this point.
Israeli Cabinet Resolution of June 19, 1967 : 105
Sinai Peninsula to Egypt. Eager to defend the Israeli withdrawal, Dayan said in the
course of a Knesset debate over the Camp David Accords in September 1978 that
the Eshkol government had offered Sinai to Egypt and the Golan Heights to Syria
in return for peace, but the presidents of both countries had declined.80
The claim that the three nos of Khartoum had served as Egypts negative
response to the June 19 resolution was reiterated by Yisrael Galili, Israels minister
of information in June 1967, in an interview published in 1981, and by Moshe
Raviv, Ebans political secretary during the same period, in his 1998 memoirs.
However, Raviv gives a wrong date for the EbanRusk meeting, and Galili insisted
Abba Eban did not create the myth of the generous peace offer all by himself.
He concocted an untrue story, and the myth has been developed by the dozens of
scholars, researchers and other writers who did not query Ebans tale, repeating
and recycling it without question. Of Ebans many versions they relied solely on his
1978 autobiography, or on other authors whose source was the same book.84 None
wondered how it was that such a momentous initiative had not been mentioned in
any of the memoirs and writings of President Johnson, Undersecretary Rostow
85. http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/biopage.asp#anchor24993.
86. Ebans cable to Eshkol was declassified in 2000; Rusks cable to the State Department in
1995.
87. Arnon Lammfromm and Haggai Tsoref, eds., Levi Eshkol: Rosh ha-Memshalah ha-Shlishi:
Mivhar Teudot mi-Pirkei Hayav (1895-1969) [Hebrew] (Jerusalem, Israel, 2002), 575.
88. The editor of this series of official publications confirmed on behalf of the volumes
editors that Ebans autobiography was their only source. Yemima Rosenthal, letter to author,
October 20, 2004.
89. Zeev Maoz, Defending the Holy Land: A Critical Analysis of Israels Security & Foreign Policy
(Ann Arbor, MI, 2006), 406.
90. Avraham Sela, The Decline of the Arab-Israeli Conflict: Middle East Politics and the Quest for
Regional Order (Albany, NY, 1998), 98.
91. Dan Schueftan, Mi-Milhemet Sheshet-ha-Yamim le-Milhemet-ha-Hatashah, in Yeridat
ha-Natserizm, 1965-1970: Shkiatah shel Tnuah Meshihit [Hebrew], ed. Shimon Shamir, (Tel
Aviv, Israel, 1978), 328. No reference is offered.
92. Samir A. Mutawi, Jordan in the 1967 War (Cambridge, UK, 1987), 180, and n. 4950 on
211. There is no source for Egypt and Syrias non-reaction. The reference given for Nassers
alleged response is an article in a Jordanian daily. However, the article does not mention any Israeli
proposal, and the context of the quotation from Nasser is different. Abd al-Majid Farid, Wathaiq
wa-Asrar wa-Waqai: Liqaat al-Husayn wa-Abd al-Nasir, Al-Rai (Amman), April 11, 1983 (for
English version see Farid, Nasser, 5558).
Israeli Cabinet Resolution of June 19, 1967 : 107
according to the English version of this book (2006), the resolution covered with-
drawal from significant portions of the Gaza Strip as well.93
Avi Shlaim was the first scholar seriously to question the validity of the myth,
after obtaining Rusks report of his June 21 meeting with Eban from the Johnson
Presidential Library, and observing the lack of any confirmation from Egyptian or
Syrian sources that they had received an Israeli peace proposal.94 Yet the note of
caution that Shlaim sounded in The Iron Wall in 2000 went unheeded, with a
number of writers repeating the myth and even using The Iron Wall as their
source.95 Though a handful of writers did not accept Ebans story fully, they did
93. Yoram Meital, Shalom Shavur: Yisrael, ha-Falastinim ve-ha-Mizrah ha-Tikhon [Hebrew]
(Jerusalem, 2004), 44; idem, Peace in Tatters: Israel, Palestine, and the Middle East (Boulder, CO,
2006), 20.
94. Shlaim, The Iron Wall, 25354.
95. For example, Leslie Stein, The Making of Modern Israel, 1948-1967 (Cambridge, 2009),
319, and n. 99 on 374; Maoz, Defending the Holy Land, 406; Frank Brenchley, Britain, the Six-Day
War and Its Aftermath (London, 2005), 54 (and n. 1 on 161); 97.
96. Meital, Shalom Shavur, 44.
97. Dan Bavly, Halomot ve-Hizdamnuyot she-Huhmetsu 1967-1973 [Hebrew] (Jerusalem, 2002),
3738; Joseph Nevo, King Hussein and the Evolution of Jordans Perception of a Political Settlement with
Israel, 1967-1988 (Brighton, UK, 2006), 27; Yigal Kipnis, Ha-Har she-Hayah ke-Mifletset: Ha-Golan
bein Suryah ve-Yisrael [Hebrew] (Jerusalem, Israel, 2009), 9394, 167, 321. Nevos source is Bavly.
Bavly, who mentions no source, relied on interviews with Israeli and American diplomats who had
come up with no concrete evidence as to whether the Israeli ideas had been transmitted to Egypt
(Bavly, email to author, January 29, 2005). Kipnis speculates that immediately after the Americans
had acquainted Israel with the details of the Glassboro discussions, Premier Eshkol and his asso-
ciates interpreted the non-mention of the June 19 resolution as proof that Egypt and Syria had
declined their peace proposal.
98. Ian J. Bickerton, The Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History (London, 2009), 107. Bickerton relies
on Shlaims The Iron Wall.
99. Shlomo Ben-Ami, Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy (Oxford, UK,
2006), 125. No source is indicated, but as acknowledged in the Preface (p. xiii), in 2004 I shared
with Professor Ben-Ami my early findings on the myth of the generous peace offer of June 19,
1967.
108 : d i p l o m a t i c h i s t o r y
Bickerton and Ben-Amis words also went unnoticed. Moreover, they and most the
other authors overlooked the language of resolution 563 which did not in fact
constitute a pledge to relinquish all the Egyptian and Syrian territories in return for
peace with Cairo and Damascus, respectively.
A discussion of resolution 563 should have taken place in the broader context of
Israels intentions and policy in the aftermath of the June 1967 War. The treat-
ment of the subject in the existing literature has prevented such a discourse from
evolving. Moreover, it led to the erroneous representation of the June 19 resolu-
tion as proof of Israels desire for peace and of insurmountable Arab animosity