For the "Three Noes" policy established in April 1979 by the Republic of China, see Three Noes.
You can help expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article in Hebrew. Click [show] for important translation instructions.
Machine translation, like DeepL or Google Translate, is a useful starting point for translations, but translators must follow the LLM translation guideline, revise errors as necessary and confirm that the translation is accurate, rather than simply copy-pasting machine-translated text into the English Wikipedia.
Do not translate text that appears unreliable or low-quality. If possible, verify the text with references provided in the foreign-language article.
You must provide copyright attribution in the edit summary accompanying your translation by providing an interlanguage link to the source of your translation. A model attribution edit summary is Content in this edit is translated from the existing Hebrew Wikipedia article at [[:he:ועידת ח'רטום]]; see its history for attribution.
You may also add the template {{Translated|he|ועידת ח'רטום}} to the talk page.
،لا صلح مع إسرائيل
،لا تفاوض مع إسرائيل
.لا اعتراف بإسرائيل
Translation:
No peace with Israel,
No negotiation with Israel,
No recognition of Israel.
— "The Three Noes", Khartoum Resolution, 1967
The front page of the Egyptian newspaper Al-Akhbar, September 2, 1967, summarizes the historic conclusions of the Khartoum Summit including The "Three No's" (اللاءات الثلاث)
The Khartoum Resolution (Arabic: قرار الخرطوم) of 1 September 1967 was issued at the conclusion of the 1967 Arab League summit (aka 'the Khartoum Conference'), which was convened in Khartoum, the capital of Sudan, in late August 1967. It was convened in the aftermath of the Six-Day War and was attended by leaders of eight Arab states. The declaration issued at its conclusion (aka 'the Khartoum Resolution') is famous for containing (in the third paragraph) what became known as the "Three Noes" (Arabic: اللاءات الثلاث) or "The Three Noes of Khartoum" (لاءات الخرطوم الثلاث).[1] The resolution guided Arab policy toward Israel until the Yom Kippur War.[2]
The conference has affirmed the unity of Arab states, the unity of joint action and the need for coordination and for the elimination of all differences. The Kings, Presidents and representatives of the other Arab Heads of State at the conference have affirmed their countries' stand by an implementation of the Arab Solidarity Charter which was signed at the third Arab summit conference in Casablanca.
The conference has agreed on the need to consolidate all efforts to eliminate the effects of the aggression on the basis that the occupied lands are Arab lands and that the burden of regaining these lands falls on all the Arab States.
The Arab Heads of State have agreed to unite their political efforts at the international and diplomatic level to eliminate the effects of the aggression and to ensure the withdrawal of the aggressive Israeli forces from the Arab lands which have been occupied since the aggression of 5 June. This will be done within the framework of the main principles by which the Arab States abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it, and insistence on the rights of the Palestinian people in their own country.
Some of the attending heads of state at the Arab League Summit in Khartoum, 1967. Left to right: King Faisal of Saudi Arabia, Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, Abdullah Sallal of Yemen, Sheikh Sabah Al-Salem Al-Sabah of Kuwait and Abd al-Rahman Arif of IraqThe conference of Arab Ministers of Finance, Economy and Oil recommended that suspension of oil pumping be used as a weapon in the battle. However, after thoroughly studying the matter, the summit conference has come to the conclusion that the oil pumping can itself be used as a positive weapon, since oil is an Arab resource which can be used to strengthen the economy of the Arab States directly affected by the aggression, so that these States will be able to stand firm in the battle. The conference has, therefore, decided to resume the pumping of oil, since oil is a positive Arab resource that can be used in the service of Arab goals. It can contribute to the efforts to enable those Arab States which were exposed to the aggression and thereby lost economic resources to stand firm and eliminate the effects of the aggression. The oil-producing States have, in fact, participated in the efforts to enable the States affected by the aggression to stand firm in the face of any economic pressure.
The participants in the conference have approved the plan proposed by Kuwait to set up an Arab Economic and Social Development Fund on the basis of the recommendation of the Baghdad conference of Arab Ministers of Finance, Economy and Oil.
The participants have agreed on the need to adopt the necessary measures to strengthen military preparation to face all eventualities.
The conference has decided to expedite the elimination of foreign bases in the Arab States.
In Israel, the Khartoum Resolution was generally seen as a confirmation and further proof that the Arab states intended to continue the conflict and were not ready to engage in peace negotiations.[3] The Israeli government issued a decision committing itself to the pursuit of peace agreements with the Arab states, but stating that in the face of Arab refusal to negotiate, Israel would stand by “positions essential to its security and to its unhindered development.”[4][5]Golda Meir described the resolution as a call for Israel’s destruction and proof that the Arab position had not changed.[6] While visiting the Suez Canal, Israel’s prime minister, Levi Eshkol, responded to the resolution saying “When there is no dialogue, there is no choice but to seek and find natural boundaries and there is no more natural boundary than this canal, the Suez Canal.”[7]Abba Eban rejected interpretations that the Arab states had shown moderation at the conference.[8] Similarly, Henry Kissinger saw the Khartoum resolution as evidence of the radicalization that had taken hold in the Arab world after the Six-Day War.[9][10]
Ahmad Shukeiri described the resolution as a second Arab defeat following the Six-Day War. In his view, the conference marked the beginning of major political concessions and a retreat from the struggle to liberate Palestine.[6]
Commentators have frequently presented the resolution as an example of Arab rejectionism. Abd al Azim Ramadan stated that the Khartoum decisions left only one option—war.[11]Efraim Halevy, Guy Ben-Porat, Steven R. David, Julius Stone, and Ian Bremmer all agree the Khartoum Resolution amounted to a rejection of Israel's right to exist.[12][13][14][15][16] The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) itself enlisted the Khartoum Resolution to advocate against acceptance of Israel's right to exist as articulated in United Nations Security Council Resolution 242.[17]Benny Morris wrote that the Arab leaders "hammered out a defiant, rejectionist platform that was to bedevil all peace moves in the region for a decade" despite an Israeli offer on 19 June 1967 "to give up Sinai and the Golan in exchange for peace."[18]Odd Bull of the UNTSO opined in much the same manner in 1976.[19] Similarly, Professor William Quandt argued that the Arab position hardened at the conference.[20]
Avi Shlaim argued that Arab spokesmen interpreted the Khartoum declarations to mean "no formal peace treaty, but not a rejection of peace; no direct negotiations, but not a refusal to talk through third parties; and no de jure recognition of Israel, but acceptance of its existence as a state" (emphasis in original). Shlaim states that the conference marked a turning point in Arab–Israeli relations by noting that Gamal Abdel Nasser urged Hussein of Jordan to seek a "comprehensive settlement" with Israel. Shlaim acknowledges that none of that was known in Israel at the time, whose leaders took the "Three Nos" at face value.[21] Similarly, Fred Khouri argued that "the Khartoum conference cleared the way for the Arab moderates to seek a political solution and to offer, in exchange for their conquered lands, important concessions short of actually recognizing Israel and negotiating formal peace treaties with her."[22]
Several media outlets in the United States noted what it saw as a shift in the Arab position and regarded it as a positive development. A similar assessment appeared in a report submitted to Lyndon B. Johnson and was echoed by various Western officials.[23][24][25][26][27]
Indirect negotiations between Israel, Jordan, Egypt and Syria eventually opened through the auspices of the Jarring Mission (1967–1973), and secret direct talks also took place between Israel and Jordan, but neither avenue succeeded in achieving a meaningful settlement, which set the stage for a new round of conflict. An unpublished study, reported in 2010, of the Jarring Mission argued that Jarring's efforts actually paved the way for the future peace talks and so were more significant than is commonly assumed.[28]
^ abMeiṭal, Yoram, ed. (1997). Egypt's struggle for peace: continuity and change, 1967-1977. Gainesville, Fla: University Press of Florida. pp. 41–46. ISBN978-0-8130-1533-0.
^Halevy, Efraim. "Israel's Hamas Portfolio"(PDF). Israel Council on Foreign Relations. Archived from the original(PDF) on 25 February 2012. Retrieved 8 June 2012. Indeed, twenty years later, after two successive wars, the Arab world rejected Israel's right to exist at the infamous Khartoum Conference of 196[7] – 'the three NOs': no to recognition, no to negotiation, and no to peace were uttered in response to Israel's appeal to negotiate without any preconditions.
^David, Steven R. (2009). "Chapter 13: Existential Threats to Israel". In Freedman, Robert O. (ed.). Contemporary Israel: Domestic Politics, Foreign Policy, and Security Challenges. Boulder, Colorado: WestView Press. p. 559. ISBN978-0-8133-4385-3. Retrieved 8 June 2012. Following Israel's success, in what became known as the Six Day War, the Arab states reinforced their refusal to accept Israel's existence when, in a conference in Khartoum, Sudan, they declared they would not negotiate with Israel, make peace with Israel, or recognize its right to exist.
^Tucker, Spencer C., ed. (2008). The Encyclopedia of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Vol. 1. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. p. 1289. ISBN978-1-85109-841-5. Retrieved 8 June 2012. The PLO disagreed entirely with the provisions whereby Arab nations were expected to recognize Israel's right to exist, claiming that these not only ran counter to the Arab states' earlier Khartoum Summit Conference declaration but were also 'fundamentally and gravely inconsistent with the Arab character of Palestine, the essence of the Palestinian cause and the right of the Palestinian people to their homeland.'
^Bull, Odd (1976). War and peace in the Middle East the experiences a views of a U.N. observer. Leo Cooper. p. 126. ISBN9780850522266. OCLC490839078.
^William B. Quandt, Peace Process: American Diplomacy and the Arab-Israeli Conflict since 1967 (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2005), pp. 39–42.
The Khartoum Resolution refers to the political resolutions unanimously adopted on 1 September 1967 by the heads of state of Arab League member countries at the fourth Arab Summit held in Khartoum, Sudan, immediately following Israel's victory in the June 1967 Six-Day War.[1] The document outlined a unified Arab strategy emphasizing armed resistance to reclaim territories lost to Israel, including the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Sinai Peninsula, and Golan Heights, while rejecting any compromise with the Israeli government.[1] Its most defining feature was the explicit "three no's" policy—no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiation with Israel.[1]The summit's proceedings were convened amid Arab military defeat and internal divisions, with Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser playing a pivotal role in pushing for rejectionist terms to avoid perceived capitulation, despite some delegations favoring more pragmatic recovery efforts.[2] Beyond the headline refusals, the resolution committed to ongoing "struggle against Israel by every means" for territorial liberation, established a $378 million annual Arab fund to support frontline states and Palestinian fedayeen groups, and temporarily imposed an oil embargo on Western supporters of Israel—though the latter was quietly lifted within months due to economic pressures.[1] These measures aimed to project pan-Arab solidarity and deterrence, but they entrenched a policy of non-engagement that foreclosed direct bilateral talks for decades.[3]The resolution's uncompromising stance became a cornerstone of Arab-Israeli relations, frequently invoked by Israeli leaders to justify security-focused policies and territorial retention, as it signaled no immediate prospect for diplomatic resolution absent unconditional concessions.[4] While later Arab initiatives, such as the 1982 Fez plan, introduced conditional peace overtures, the Khartoum framework persisted in shaping rejectionist narratives within Palestinian and broader Arab politics, contributing to prolonged stalemate and cycles of conflict.[3] Its legacy underscores the causal link between post-war Arab strategic choices and the absence of early peace accords, prioritizing ideological unity over pragmatic negotiation despite evident military imbalances.[5]
Historical Context
Lead-up to the Six-Day War
Tensions along Israel's borders with Syria and Jordan escalated throughout the 1960s, marked by frequent infiltrations, sabotage attempts, and artillery exchanges. Syrian forces, often supporting Palestinian fedayeen groups, conducted hundreds of cross-border raids and shelling attacks on Israeli settlements from the Golan Heights between February 1966 and May 1967.[6] In response, Israel carried out retaliatory operations, including raids against Jordanian targets following attacks such as the November 1966 murder of three Israeli civilians near the border.[7] These incidents heightened mutual suspicions, with Syria's attempts to divert the Jordan River's headwaters in 1964-1965 prompting Israeli airstrikes on the works to protect its water supply, further straining relations.[8]A pivotal aerial clash occurred on April 7, 1967, when Syrian artillery targeted Israeli villages, leading to an air battle over the Golan Heights in which Israeli forces downed six Syrian MiG fighters.[7] This event underscored Syria's vulnerability and prompted closer military coordination with Egypt. On May 13, 1967, Soviet intelligence falsely reported to Egyptian and Syrian leaders that Israel was massing troops for an imminent invasion of Syria, a claim later confirmed as erroneous but which spurred Egyptian mobilization.[9] Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, seeking to assert regional leadership, demanded the withdrawal of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) from the Sinai Peninsula on May 16, which UN Secretary-General U Thant approved by May 18, removing the buffer between Egyptian and Israeli forces.[10]Nasser then ordered Egyptian troops into the Sinai, amassing seven divisions near the border by late May, and on May 22, 1967, declared the Straits of Tiran closed to Israeli shipping and vessels bound for Israel's Eilat port, effectively imposing a naval blockade that Israel viewed as a casus belli under international law.[7] This action violated the 1956 armistice arrangements and 1958 UN consensus on free passage through the straits.[11] On May 30, Egypt signed a mutual defense pact with Jordan, placing Jordanian forces under Egyptian command and allowing Iraqi troops to deploy there, while Syria invoked its alliance with Egypt.[12] Facing encirclement and economic strain from prolonged mobilization, Israel launched a preemptive air strike on Egyptian airfields on June 5, 1967, initiating the Six-Day War.[7]
Outcomes of the Six-Day War and Territorial Changes
The Six-Day War concluded on June 10, 1967, following a United Nations-brokered ceasefire, marking a decisive Israeli victory against Egypt, Jordan, and Syria.[13][14] Israel's preemptive air strikes on June 5 destroyed much of the Arab air forces on the ground, enabling rapid ground advances that overwhelmed numerically superior enemy troops.[9] Casualties reflected the asymmetry: Israel reported around 700 military deaths, while Arab forces suffered approximately 18,000 fatalities, with Egypt alone accounting for over 11,000, Jordan 6,000, and Syria 1,000.[14] These losses included thousands of prisoners captured by Israel, further crippling Arab military capabilities in the immediate aftermath.[15]Territorially, the war transformed Israel's borders through the occupation of vast areas totaling over 67,000 square kilometers, roughly tripling its pre-war size of about 20,000 square kilometers.[16]Israel captured the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip from Egypt, securing a buffer against future Egyptian threats and control over the Straits of Tiran; the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, from Jordan, which incorporated historic Jewish sites and expanded urban boundaries; and the Golan Heights from Syria, providing defensive highlands overlooking northern Israel.[17][9] These gains were formalized under ceasefire lines, with Israel establishing military administration over the territories, though no immediate annexation occurred except for the unification of Jerusalem under Israeli law on June 27, 1967.[18]The occupations introduced immediate logistical challenges, including governance of over a million newly administered Arab residents and fortified positions to deter retaliation, while bolstering Israel's strategic position amid ongoing Arab mobilization threats.[19] Egypt's President Nasser initially denied defeats but conceded the losses publicly by mid-June, prompting Arab introspection that influenced subsequent diplomatic responses.[9]
The 1967 Arab League Summit
Summit Convening and Objectives
The Fourth Arab League Summit convened on August 29, 1967, in Khartoum, Sudan, under the chairmanship of Sudanese President Ismai'il al-Azhari, and concluded on September 1.[20] Held in the aftermath of the Arab states' defeat in the Six-Day War (June 5–10, 1967), during which Israel seized the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria, the summit served as an emergency gathering of Arab leaders to address the strategic and political fallout from these territorial losses.[21][3]The primary objectives centered on restoring Arab unity and coordinating a collective response to Israel's military gains, including strategies to reclaim occupied territories through diplomatic, economic, and potential military means.[21] Leaders sought to eliminate internal divisions exacerbated by the war's humiliation, affirming commitments to joint action and coordination among member states.[1] A key aim was to mobilize resources for reconstruction, with resolutions directing oil-producing Arab nations—such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Libya—to provide financial assistance totaling approximately $378 million annually to Egypt and Jordan for rebuilding their economies and armed forces devastated by the conflict.[22] This support mechanism underscored the summit's focus on sustaining long-term resistance capabilities rather than immediate concessions.[23]
Key Participants and Discussions
The 1967 Arab League Summit in Khartoum, held from August 29 to September 1, was attended by eight Arab heads of state, including Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, Jordanian King Hussein, Saudi Arabian King Faisal, and Sudanese President Ismail al-Azhari as host, along with leaders or representatives from Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, and Yemen; Syria notably boycotted the gathering amid post-war recriminations.[21][24] Discussions emphasized restoring Arab solidarity after the Six-Day War defeat, with participants affirming commitment to the 1965 Casablanca Arab Solidarity Charter and pledging to eliminate inter-Arab differences through coordinated action.[1]Central debates revolved around strategies for reclaiming territories lost to Israel, including the Sinai Peninsula, Golan Heights, West Bank, and Gaza Strip, with Nasser advocating a hardline stance against any concessions that could legitimize Israeli gains.[5] Jordan's King Hussein, facing domestic pressures and territorial losses, expressed reservations about outright rejectionism but ultimately aligned with the consensus to avoid isolation, while oil-rich Gulf states like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait focused on economic leverage, proposing oil revenues as a "positive weapon" to fund reconstruction rather than an embargo that risked global backlash.[24][25]Financial aid commitments emerged as a key outcome of the talks, with Arab oil producers agreeing to provide £135 million annually—£95 million to Egypt and £40 million to Jordan—to bolster military preparedness and deter further Israeli advances, reflecting a pragmatic recognition of the need for sustained confrontation over immediate escalation.[21] Tensions surfaced over Palestinian representation and guerrilla operations, but the summit's proceedings prioritized unified rejection of direct engagement with Israel, framing territorial recovery as contingent on Israeli withdrawal without reciprocal peace or recognition, a position hardened by Nasser's influence despite underlying divergences in Arab priorities.[5][1]
Resolution Content
Formal Resolutions Adopted
The Arab League Summit in Khartoum, convened from August 29 to September 1, 1967, concluded with the unanimous adoption of seven formal resolutions by the attending heads of state from Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan, and Syria, along with representatives from Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, and the Palestine Liberation Organization.[1][26] These resolutions focused on political unity, territorial recovery, economic support, and military preparedness in response to Israel's occupation of the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza Strip, West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Golan Heights following the Six-Day War.[1]The first resolution reaffirmed Arab solidarity, joint action, and coordination to resolve internal differences, explicitly endorsing the principles of the Arab Solidarity Charter adopted at the 1965 Casablanca Summit.[1][26] The second committed Arab states to unified efforts aimed at eliminating the consequences of Israeli aggression, declaring the occupied territories as Arab lands and rejecting any infringement on Arab sovereignty.[1]The third resolution outlined a coordinated diplomatic strategy to secure full Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories, while insisting on the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people; it pledged adherence to non-recognition of Israel and rejection of any peace or negotiation that compromised these objectives.[1][26] The fourth addressed economic leverage, designating oil as a strategic asset to bolster economies harmed by the war, with a decision to resume production and exports while providing financial aid to affected states like Egypt and Jordan.[1]Further resolutions included approval of a Kuwaiti proposal for an Arab economic and social development fund to promote self-reliance and reconstruction, as recommended by prior Arab conferences.[1][26] The sixth emphasized accelerating military buildup across Arab states to deter future threats, and the seventh called for the prompt elimination of foreign military bases within Arab territories to enhance strategic independence.[1] These measures reflected a consensus on defensive posture and resource mobilization without immediate recourse to hostilities.[26]
The Three No's Press Statement
The Three No's Press Statement, issued on September 1, 1967, at the close of the Arab League Summit in Khartoum, Sudan, encapsulated the unified position of 13 participating Arab states toward Israel after its victory in the Six-Day War. The statement articulated a policy of rejectionism, declaring that the conference was "committed to the following: no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it." It insisted on Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied since June 5, 1967, and the restoration of Palestinian rights.[1][26] This phrasing, often rendered in Arabic as al-lā'āt al-thalāth (the three no's), served as a public manifesto of Arab solidarity, prioritizing indirect confrontation through political, economic, and military means over direct diplomacy.[3]The statement emerged from closed-door deliberations where leaders, including Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser and Jordan's King Hussein, reconciled internal divisions to project a hardline front, despite private Egyptian overtures toward possible Rogers Plan-style talks in subsequent months.[25] It was not a numbered formal resolution but a concluding press communique, designed for maximum signaling effect to domestic audiences and the international community, reinforcing commitments to armed struggle and economic leverage, such as using oil exports as a "positive weapon" against Israel and its supporters.[3][26]Historians note the statement's deliberate ambiguity: while framed as conditional on Israeli concessions, its categorical "no's" foreclosed bilateral negotiations, interpreting United Nations Security Council Resolution 242's land-for-peace framework as mandating full withdrawal without reciprocal security guarantees for Israel.[1] Unanimously endorsed by attendees excluding Algeria's observer status, it reflected a strategic pivot from pre-war rhetoric to post-defeat realism, aiming to deter Israeli entrenchment in the Sinai Peninsula, Golan Heights, West Bank, and Gaza Strip through sustained non-recognition.[25] The U.S. State Department contemporaneously assessed it as barring peace initiatives, underscoring its role in entrenching a zero-sum paradigm.[25]
The Khartoum Resolution was unanimously endorsed by attending Arab leaders on September 1, 1967, as a demonstration of post-war solidarity, with the summit's concluding statement emphasizing the "unity of Arab ranks" and the elimination of internal differences to focus on reclaiming lost territories through collective effort.[1] This consensus masked underlying tensions, as radical factions led by Syria, Iraq, Algeria, and the Palestine Liberation Organization advocated for immediate escalation, including an oil embargo and renewed military confrontation, while moderate Gulf states like Saudi Arabia prioritized financial stabilization to prevent further fragmentation.[27]In Egypt, President Gamal Abdel Nasser publicly aligned with the resolution's stance, framing it as a strategic rejection of Israeli "aggression" that preserved Arab dignity and enabled reconstruction, bolstered by pledges of $378 million in annual aid from oil-producing nations to rebuild Egyptian forces.[27] Nasser's government portrayed the Three No's as a bulwark against capitulation, though internal Egyptian policy debates revealed a preference for avoiding direct negotiations that could expose divisions, with Nasser accepting Saudi-mediated compromises to secure unity.[27]Jordan's King Hussein similarly supported the outcome, describing the Khartoum position in private communications as "reasonable and responsible," linking it to potential flexibility on issues like Israeli passage through the Suez Canal if tied to territorial restoration, while publicly committing to the no-negotiation principle amid $175 million in pledged aid for Jordanian recovery.[28] Hussein's endorsement reflected a pragmatic effort to balance domestic pressures for defiance with the need to avert regime-threatening unrest.Syria, under President Nureddin al-Atassi, expressed reservations during summit deliberations, boycotting elements of the agenda and rejecting any softening of rhetoric, insisting on unqualified armed liberation rather than the resolution's calibrated rejectionism, which Syrian officials viewed as insufficiently militant.[27] This hawkish posture persisted, with Syria opposing subsequent UN frameworks like Resolution 242 and prioritizing guerrilla support over diplomatic openings.[29]Across the Arab world, the resolution was leveraged by regimes to rally public sentiment, presenting the Three No's as a unified front that restored morale after the Six-Day War defeat, though it deferred substantive policy shifts amid economic aid commitments totaling over $550 million from Gulf states to frontline nations Egypt and Jordan for the 1967–1968 period.[27] Despite surface unity, the compromises embedded in the text—favoring financial and diplomatic coordination over immediate war—highlighted pragmatic concessions by moderates to contain radical demands, setting the stage for future policy divergences.[27]
Israeli and Western Reactions
Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol condemned the Khartoum summit's resolutions as irresponsible, arguing that the Arab states' refusal to negotiate or recognize Israel strengthened Israel's resolve against returning to the prewar borders that had endangered its security.[30][31] On September 3, 1967, Eshkol stated in the Knesset that the Arab stance eliminated any basis for Israel to revert to vulnerable positions, effectively repealing an earlier cabinet decision from June 19, 1967, to withdraw from captured territories in exchange for peace guarantees.[4] Israeli officials expressed shock at the resolutions, viewing them as a definitive rejection of peace overtures made immediately after the Six-Day War, which had included offers to trade land for recognition and non-aggression pacts.[5]In the United States, President Lyndon B. Johnson assessed the Khartoum communiqué in a September 1967 letter to Saudi King Faisal as outlining Arab refusals without positive steps toward settlement, complicating U.S. efforts to broker peace amid the post-war stalemate.[32] The U.S. response emphasized the need for direct negotiations implicitly rejected by the "Three No's," influencing American support for United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 later that November, which called for Israeli withdrawal from territories while securing peace and recognized borders.[29]British Foreign Secretary George Brown interpreted the Khartoum decisions as conclusive evidence of Arab disinterest in peace, particularly under Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, prompting the UK to prioritize realistic security arrangements over immediate territorial concessions in subsequent diplomatic initiatives.[33] Western European powers, including the UK, aligned with U.S. views in seeing the resolutions as prolonging conflict, though France under Charles de Gaulle maintained a more equivocal stance critical of Israeli actions without directly endorsing the Arab position. Overall, the resolutions dashed Western hopes for swift postwar reconciliation, reinforcing advocacy for balanced frameworks like Resolution 242 that conditioned land returns on explicit peace commitments.[34]
Interpretations and Debates
Interpretation as Arab Rejectionism
The Khartoum Resolution's concluding press statement, issued on September 1, 1967, articulated the "Three No's"—no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with it—which many analysts and Israeli policymakers interpreted as a categorical rejection of any diplomatic engagement or compromise, effectively prioritizing the existential struggle against Israel's existence over pragmatic territorial recovery.[1][24] This view posits that, despite Israel's military victories in the Six-Day War (June 5–10, 1967) and its subsequent offers to trade captured territories for peace treaties—as conveyed through UN channels—the Arab states' unified stance closed off bilateral talks, interpreting "negotiation" to encompass any direct or indirect discussions under duress from battlefield outcomes.[5]Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol explicitly cited the resolution as reinforcing Israel's determination against unilateral withdrawals to the vulnerable pre-1967 armistice lines, framing it as evidence of enduring Arab belligerence rather than a mere defensive posture.[4]Proponents of this rejectionist interpretation argue that the Three No's reflected not tactical restraint but a strategic commitment to Israel's delegitimization, rooted in pre-war Arab rhetoric such as Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser's May 1967 calls for Israel's annihilation and blockade of the Straits of Tiran, which precipitated the conflict.[5] The resolution's broader context, including affirmations of armed struggle and non-recognition of UN Security Council Resolution 242's land-for-peace framework without full Israeli capitulation, underscored a causal chain where Arab unity post-defeat prioritized pan-Arab solidarity and rejection of Israel's right to exist over empirical opportunities for de-escalation, as evidenced by the absence of counter-proposals for phased withdrawals or confidence-building measures at the summit.[24][27] This reading gained traction in Western analyses, with outlets like The Washington Post later attributing stalled progress in the Arab-Israeli conflict to such "intransigence," linking Khartoum's no-negotiation clause to the rejection of Palestinian self-determination options and the perpetuation of military confrontations.[35]Empirical support for the rejectionism lens includes the Arab states' failure to initiate peace overtures in the decade following Khartoum, culminating in the coordinated 1973 Yom Kippur War surprise attack by Egypt and Syria on October 6, 1973—launched without prior diplomatic testing of Israeli positions—despite the resolution's own emphasis on recovering lost territories through unspecified means.[36] Critics of counter-narratives, which portray the Three No's as a refusal to negotiate from weakness rather than outright hostility, counter that primary summit documents show no provisions for future talks contingent on Israeli concessions, instead endorsing ongoing "joint action" and military coordination against Israel, consistent with patterns of state-sponsored terrorism and proxy conflicts in the late 1960s and 1970s.[1][5] While some academic interpretations, often from institutions with noted ideological tilts toward viewing Israel as the primary aggressor, downplay this as post-colonial defiance, the resolution's plain text and immediate sequel of non-engagement substantiate the causal realism of Arab agency in foreclosing peace pathways until unilateral shifts, such as Egypt's 1979 treaty under Anwar Sadat.[36][37]
Counter-Interpretations and Contextual Defenses
Some historians, including Avi Shlaim and Fred Khouri, have interpreted the Khartoum declarations not as an unqualified denial of peace or Israel's legitimacy, but as qualified positions: no formal treaty while territories remained occupied, no direct bilateral talks absent Israeli withdrawal and recognition of Palestinian rights, and no de jure recognition pending resolution of the 1967 conquests, while permitting indirect diplomacy and de facto acceptance of Israel's existence.[38][39] This view posits the stance as tactical restraint rather than ideological absolutism, aligning with UN Security Council Resolution 242's framework of land-for-peace, which Arabs endorsed post-Khartoum as a basis for recovering the Sinai, Golan, West Bank, and Gaza without immediate concessions.[27]Contextually, the summit's positions reflected the psychological and political imperatives following the Six-Day War's Arab defeat on June 5-10, 1967, where Israel captured approximately 70,000 square kilometers of territory from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, displacing over 300,000 Palestinians and shattering pan-Arab military confidence.[1] Leaders like Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser and Jordan's King Hussein confronted domestic hardliners and public demands for retribution, rendering premature negotiations politically untenable; Hussein's memoirs later framed Khartoum as a moderate victory over radical factions pushing for immediate guerrilla escalation, preserving Arab unity and forestalling internal collapse.[39] Egyptian Foreign Minister Mahmoud Riad emphasized that the No's targeted normalization under duress, not perpetual enmity, allowing regimes to rebuild militaries—Egypt's forces grew from 180,000 to over 300,000 by 1970—while pursuing multilateral avenues like the Jarring Mission for indirect mediation.[27]In Egypt's case, Khartoum facilitated a strategic pivot from war footing to diplomatic maneuvering, as evidenced by Nasser's post-summit acceptance of Rogers Plan elements in 1969-1970, which proposed partial Israeli withdrawals in exchange for cease-fires, signaling the resolutions' role in buying time for recovery rather than entrenching rejectionism.[27] Proponents argue this prevented a dictated settlement favoring Israel's retention of gains, compelling international pressure via the UN and superpowers; by rejecting direct talks, Arabs avoided bilateral deals that could fragment the front, as seen in Hussein's 1970 secret overtures to Israel, which Khartoum's framework indirectly enabled by maintaining collective leverage.[40] Such defenses highlight how the stance comported with just war principles post-aggression, prioritizing restitution over capitulation amid Israel's settlement initiations in the occupied zones by late 1967.[26]
Empirical Assessments of Intransigence
The Khartoum Resolution's Three No's—no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiation with Israel—were empirically manifested in the Arab states' refusal to engage in substantive diplomatic processes immediately following the 1967 Six-Day War. The United Nations Security Council appointed Gunnar Jarring as special representative on November 21, 1967, to facilitate implementation of Resolution 242 through bilateral talks, yet the mission collapsed by April 23, 1968, primarily due to Arab insistence on avoiding direct negotiations, consistent with the Khartoum commitment to indirect or preconditioned contacts that stalled progress. Syria outright rejected participation, while Egypt and Jordan conditioned involvement on Israeli withdrawal without reciprocal security assurances, leading to no agreements despite Jarring's shuttling efforts across 14 months. This outcome aligned with Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban's observation that Arab adherence to Khartoum precluded viable mediation.Subsequent U.S. initiatives further highlighted this pattern: Secretary of State William Rogers' December 1969 plan, envisioning Israeli withdrawal from most occupied territories in exchange for demilitarization and peace treaties, was publicly rejected by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser on December 26, 1969, as a scheme to legitimize Israeli gains, prompting escalation in the War of Attrition where Egyptian forces shelled Israeli positions across the Suez Canal from July 1967 to August 1970, resulting in over 1,400 Israeli and thousands of Egyptian casualties without any parallel negotiation track. Jordan and Syria echoed reservations, demanding full pre-1967 borders without direct talks, and the Soviet Union dismissed the proposal outright, dooming it to failure by early 1970. These rejections occurred amid Arab military rearmament, with Egypt receiving $1 billion in Soviet arms by 1970, underscoring prioritization of confrontation over compromise.The policy's intransigence peaked with the October 6, 1973, Yom Kippur War, initiated by coordinated Egyptian and Syrian attacks without prior diplomatic overtures, aiming to reclaim territories lost in 1967 through force rather than negotiation—a direct extension of Khartoum's framework, as evidenced by Sadat's pre-war rejection of U.S. mediation proposals. Direct Arab-Israeli talks only materialized after Egypt's 1973 battlefield stalemate, culminating in Sadat's November 1977 Jerusalem visit and the 1979 Camp David Accords, indicating that the decade-long absence of negotiations (1967–1977) stemmed from deliberate policy adherence rather than external barriers. While some analyses, often from institutionally left-leaning academic sources, frame the Three No's as temporary rallying rhetoric amid Arab disarray, the record of rejected frameworks like Jarring and Rogers, coupled with sustained hostilities, empirically validates it as a causal driver of prolonged conflict, independent of interpretive defenses.
Long-term Impact
Role in Prolonging Conflicts
The Khartoum Resolution's endorsement of "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiation with Israel" on September 1, 1967, established a unified Arab policy that precluded diplomatic avenues for resolving territorial disputes arising from the Six-Day War, thereby extending the state of belligerency.[1] This stance, adopted unanimously by Arab League members including Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, rejected Israel's post-war overtures for direct talks despite its military victories and occupation of the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza Strip, West Bank, and Golan Heights.[21] Israeli leaders, anticipating potential Arab concessions akin to those after the 1948 and 1956 conflicts, instead faced a doctrinal barrier that rationalized indefinite retention of these territories as security buffers absent reciprocal engagement.[5]The resolution's rejectionism manifested in sustained low-intensity hostilities, such as the War of Attrition launched by Egypt in July 1967, which inflicted over 1,400 Israeli military casualties by its August 1970 ceasefire without yielding territorial returns or peace commitments.[3] This pattern escalated to the October 1973 Yom Kippur War, where Egypt and Syria's coordinated surprise attack—resulting in approximately 2,600 Israeli deaths—stemmed from unresolved grievances over the 1967 status quo, yet again prioritized confrontation over the negotiation explicitly barred by Khartoum.[24] By framing Israel's existence as illegitimate, the policy incentivized proxy militancy and arms buildups, including Soviet-supplied arsenals that enabled these campaigns, while discouraging internal Arab debates on compromise until battlefield defeats exposed the futility of non-diplomatic strategies.Empirical evidence of prolongation is evident in the two-decade lag before substantive peace breakthroughs, as Arab adherence to the Three No's framework—upheld in subsequent League declarations—stifled multilateral initiatives like UN Security Council Resolution 242's land-for-peace formula, which required negotiation for implementation.[41] Only Egypt's unilateral departure from Khartoum policy under President Anwar Sadat, culminating in his 1977 Jerusalem visit and the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty, demonstrated that reversing rejectionism enabled conflict resolution; similar shifts with Jordan in 1994 followed analogous policy divergences.[42] The resolution's causal role lay in its unification of disparate Arab actors around intransigence, creating a self-reinforcing stalemate where Israeli defensive postures met Arab revanchism, perpetuating cycles of violence until economic pressures and strategic realignments eroded the consensus by the 1980s.[43]
Departures and Reversals in Arab Policy
The first significant departure from the Khartoum Resolution's stance occurred under Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, who initiated direct negotiations with Israel by addressing the Knesset in Jerusalem on November 19, 1977, effectively reversing the "no negotiation" pledge.[44] This culminated in the Camp David Accords, signed on September 17, 1978, between Sadat, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, and U.S. President Jimmy Carter, establishing a framework for peace that included mutual recognition and Israel's withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula.[45] The Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty followed on March 26, 1979, in Washington, D.C., formally ending the state of war, normalizing diplomatic relations, and committing both parties to non-belligerency, marking the Arab world's initial breach of the "no peace" and "no recognition" principles.[44]Subsequent shifts included the Palestine Liberation Organization's (PLO) policy reversal in 1988, when Chairman Yasser Arafat publicly affirmed Israel's right to exist in peace during a speech in Geneva on December 14, renouncing terrorism and accepting United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 as a basis for negotiations.[46] This declaration enabled U.S.-PLO dialogue and laid groundwork for later accords like Oslo in 1993, diverging from the Khartoum framework by endorsing bilateral talks over unified Arab rejectionism. Jordan formalized its departure through the Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty, signed on October 26, 1994, at the Arava border crossing, which terminated belligerency, established full diplomatic ties, and addressed water rights, borders, and security cooperation.[47][48]A wave of further reversals emerged in 2020 via the Abraham Accords, brokered by the United States, with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain announcing normalization agreements with Israel on August 13, followed by formal declarations on September 15 that included mutual recognition, economic cooperation, and cessation of boycotts.[49] Sudan joined on October 23, 2020, agreeing to normalize ties in a deal that explicitly abandoned the 1967 Khartoum Resolution—ironically hosted in its capital—prioritizing economic incentives like U.S. aid and delisting as a terrorism sponsor over pan-Arab solidarity.[50] Morocco followed in December 2020, exchanging ambassadors and expanding trade, security, and aviation links in exchange for U.S. recognition of its sovereignty over Western Sahara.[51] These pacts represented the most rapid series of Arab recognitions since 1994, driven by shared concerns over Iran and economic pragmatism rather than resolution of the Palestinian issue.[49]
