Israel and the Bomb

The understandings between the United States and Israel, reached at the 1961 Waldorf-Astoria meeting, were ambiguous. The two sides knew that the differences between them on the Dimona matter had not been settled, but only postponed. Kennedy’s nonproliferation policies could not be readily implemented in the case of Israel.

Two years later, during the spring and summer of 1963, Kennedy applied the most concerted pressure yet on Israel over Dimona. He urged Ben Gurion to agree to two American visits a year to Dimona in order to verify the Waldorf-Astoria informal understanding that Israel would not build nuclear weapons.

There were several developments in late 1962 and the first half of 1963 which pushed Dimona back to the top of the American policy agenda. The Cuban missile crisis of October 1962 highlighted the dangers of the nuclear age and strengthened Kennedy’s commitment to prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons.¹ In March 1963 Kennedy gave public expression to his sense of urgency about weapons proliferation:

In February 1963 the Defense Department updated its July 1962 study on nuclear diffusion, pointing to eight states as capable of acquiring nuclear weapons and a crude means of delivery within the coming decade.³ Again, Israel was at the top of the list as the most likely proliferator after China, with 1965–66 given as the date when Israel could possibly conduct its first nuclear test. The study also concluded that “in some cases we and others would probably have to employ stronger incentives and sanctions than have seriously been considered so far.”⁴

In the July 1962 Revolution Day parade, Egypt, for the first time, displayed ballistic missiles, boasting they could cover every point “south of Beirut.” Israel knew that Egypt began a missile project by recruiting German rocket scientists in Europe, but the public display of the missiles—they were only early prototypes—alarmed the Israeli defense establishment. Though Israel had launched its own Shavit II missile with great publicity a year earlier, it was merely an experimental meteorological rocket. In July 1962 Israel had no significant ballistic missile program of its own, and all of a sudden it “discovered” its own “missile gap.”⁵

The impact of the Egyptian missile program on the Israeli defense authorities was considerable, leading to debates about Israel’s future security doctrine. The debates were secret, but their themes appeared in editorials and speeches during the summer of 1962. The debate about nuclear weapons and missiles became part of domestic politics, as Peres and other young MAPAI leaders called for a new security doctrine based on advanced weapons. The American Embassy in Tel Aviv followed these debates (see chapter 8).⁶

In early September 1962, after weeks of consultations at the Ministry of Defense, Peres asked the French company Marcel Dassault to conduct a feasibility study to develop and produce a surface-to-surface ballistic missile for Israel. Negotiations continued through the winter and spring, and on 26 April 1963 an agreement between Israel and Marcel Dassault was signed in Tel Aviv. The missile was referred to as “Jericho,” also known by its manufacturer as MD-620.⁷

American intelligence monitored the progress on the construction of Dimona and the secret French-Israeli negotiations over the Jericho missile project.⁸ The United States knew that Dimona was to become critical within a year or so, although it was unsure whether Israel had means to separate plutonium. The outbreak of the ballistic missile race, and the realization that Israel would catch up to the Egyptians with a sophisticated missile, intensified the concerns in Washington that Israel would act to realize its nuclear weapon option.⁹

On 6 March 1963 the head of the Office of National Estimates at the CIA, Sherman Kent, issued an eight-page memorandum entitled “Consequences of Israeli Acquisition of Nuclear Capability.”¹⁰ The memo considered that the consequences of an Israeli nuclear capability were grave. “Israel’s policy toward its neighbors would become more rather less tough …. it would … seek to exploit the psychological advantages of its nuclear capability to intimidate the Arabs and to prevent them from making trouble on the frontiers.” In dealing with the United States, Israel “would use all its means at its command to persuade the US to acquiesce in, and even to support, its possession of nuclear capability.”¹¹ The Arab reaction would be “profound dismay and frustration,” and “among the principal targets of Arab resentment would be the U.S.” The Arabs’ recourse would be the Soviets who would “win friends and influence in the Arab world.”¹² While it is unknown what specific information triggered writing this report, there is no doubt that the CIA had, early on in the spring of 1963, ample, alarming suspicions about Dimona (see the next section).

America worried that Israel’s acquisition of nuclear weapons would have global implications for the United States. In April 1963 the United States submitted to the Soviets its draft for a Non-Transfer Declaration, under which the nuclear powers commit themselves not to transfer nuclear weapons to the control of states currently not possessing such weapons and not to assist such states in the manufacturing of such weapons, while nonnuclear states agree not to manufacture or acquire nuclear weapons.¹³ This was an early American formulation of a nonproliferation agreement, written so as not to interfere with existing NATO arrangements and without precluding future formation of multilateral nuclear forces (MLF) in Europe.¹⁴ The Soviets opposed any notion involving Germany’s sharing custody of NATO nuclear weapons, and argued that MLF was itself an instance of nuclear weapons proliferation.¹⁵ The negotiations broke down on the issue of Germany’s role in the MLF,¹⁶ and, with no signs of progress on a nonproliferation agreement, Kennedy continued to push his nonproliferation agenda on the bilateral level.

The fear that Israel would soon become a nuclear-weapon state, the Egyptian ballistic missile program, and the consequences of both for U.S. interests led to a new effort to freeze the Israeli nuclear program.¹⁷

In the second half of March the Israeli nuclear program moved higher on President Kennedy’s agenda. On 25 March Kennedy discussed the issue with CIA director John McCone, who handed him the Agency’s estimate of the consequences of Israel’s nuclearization. After the meeting Kennedy asked Bundy to issue a presidential directive to Rusk, requesting him to look for “some form of international or bilateral U.S. safeguards” to curb the Israeli program.¹⁸ This request was the origin of National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM) 231, entitled “Middle Eastern Nuclear Capabilities,” issued the next day.

Although NSAM 231 referred to both Israeli and Egyptian nuclear programs, Israel was its main concern. Israel was perceived as being close to making critical nuclear decisions, but U.S. intelligence did not know enough about where the Israeli program was heading. The effect of NSAM 231 soon became apparent.

On 2 April, at the end of a two-hour discussion, Ambassador Barbour presented Ben Gurion with President Kennedy’s request for semiannual U.S. visits to Dimona in May and November. Ben Gurion “did not demur,” but asked to consider the matter in the next meeting.²⁰ The same day, when President Kennedy by chance ran into Myer Feldman and Shimon Peres in a White House corridor (Peres was in Washington on HAWK missile-related business), he asked Feldman to have an unscheduled meeting with the Israeli official. In the twenty-minute meeting, Kennedy talked about the Israeli nuclear program:

Two days later, on 4 April, Israeli ambassador Harman was summoned to the State Department for a similar message. Harman was reminded of Kennedy’s comments to Meir in December, and was told that the U.S. interest in Dimona came from the highest level.²² By that time the State Department had already formed a working group to develop, by early May, a plan of action to obtain an Israeli-Egyptian-American agreement on nuclear technology and missile limitation. In the spring of 1963 the White House was thus seeking arms limitation agreements to prevent the introduction of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles into the Middle East.

Ben Gurion was expected to respond to Kennedy’s request on Dimona in his next meeting with Barbour in mid-April, but new developments in the region allowed him to ignore Kennedy’s request. Ben Gurion instead sent letters to Kennedy and fifty other world leaders, discussing new dangers to Israel’s security.

In the spring of 1963, as before, Ben Gurion was not ready for a showdown with an American president over Dimona. Nor could he accept Kennedy’s terms for semiannual American visits to Dimona. So he stalled. He avoided a confrontation by exploiting the new developments in the region to engage in a lengthy correspondence with Kennedy about Israel’s security, while making an effort to diffuse Kennedy’s request.

On 17 April 1963 Egypt, Syria, and Iraq signed, in Cairo, an Arab Federation Proclamation, calling for a military union to bring about the liberation of Palestine. Rhetoric about Arab unity was not unusual at such Arab meetings at that time, but Ben Gurion took this one more seriously.²³ The seventy-six-year-old leader saw it as the realization of a nightmare—the formation of a pan-Arabic military coalition against Israel. Other Israeli decision makers, including Foreign Minister Golda Meir and the ministry’s senior staff, did not share Ben Gurion’s alarm. Ben Gurion, however, launched what his biographer calls an “unprecedented diplomatic campaign,” alerting fifty world leaders to the gravity of the new situation in the Middle East.²⁴ His correspondence with Kennedy was part of this campaign.

On 25 April Ben Gurion wrote a seven-page letter to Kennedy, informing him that “recent events have increased the danger of a serious conflagration in the Middle East” and warning that the Arab proclamation to liberate Palestine meant “the obliteration of Israel.”²⁵ Ben Gurion compared the “liberation of Palestine” to the Holocaust:

Ben Gurion proposed a joint U.S.-Soviet declaration to guarantee the territorial integrity and security of all Middle Eastern states. He also suggested cutting off assistance to states threatening their neighbors or refusing to recognize their existence. Ben Gurion acknowledged the unlikelihood of such a superpower joint declaration, but warned that without it the “situation in the Middle East assumes gravity without parallel.” He expressed his willingness to fly to Washington “without publicity” to discuss the matter with the president.²⁷

Ben Gurion’s new campaign upset many of the senior staff at the Foreign Ministry.²⁸ The substance and tone seemed exaggerated, or in senior diplomat Gideon Rafael’s words, “hysterical.” Ambassador Harman, and his deputy Mordechai Gazit in Washington, were even more critical of and frustrated with Ben Gurion’s actions. They, too, did not see the Arab Federation Proclamation of 17 April as an immediate threat to Israel. From their perspective, Ben Gurion’s campaign and his specific proposals were undermining the objectives he himself outlined, which they were pursuing.²⁹

As Harman and Gazit expected, the White House dismissed both the alarmist assessment and the specific proposals the letter contained.³⁰ Kennedy asked the State Department to take another look at the current Arab-Israeli military balance. The assessment he received was that “Israel will probably retain its overall military superiority vis-à-vis the Arab states for the next several years.”³¹ Two weeks later the White House received a more detailed study by the State Department on the implications for Israel of the Arab Federation Proclamation of 17 April. The study noted no special reason for Israel to be concerned. It predicted that real Arab unity would not be achieved for many years, if ever; that the suggested federation was a loose one, leaving considerable autonomy to the Arab states; and that it would not change the near-term Israeli military superiority. The operational significance of the Arab declaration was “marginal,” its legal significance “none,” its language “menacing, but vague.”³² The State Department’s conclusions were similar to those made by the Israeli military intelligence service.³³

On 4 May Kennedy replied to Ben Gurion’s letter, assuring him that “we are watching closely current developments in Arab world,” and that “we have Israel’s defense problems very much in mind,” but rejecting forthright Ben Gurion’s alarm over the Arab Federation Proclamation.³⁴ While the United States opposed any policies and language, such as “the liberation of Palestine,” “the practical significance of these declarations was not that different from that of the many earlier similar declarations put out in other forms and phrases.” As to Ben Gurion’s idea of a joint superpower declaration, Kennedy confessed to have “real reservations” and questioned Ben Gurion’s assessment of the situation.³⁵ Kennedy also rejected Ben Gurion’s request to come to Washington “without publicity”: “If such a meeting could really remain private, I think it might be most useful, but experience tells me that at a time like this … there is no reasonable prospect that you and I could meet without publicity.”³⁶ While rejecting Ben Gurion’s alarm about the near-term situation, Kennedy alluded to other long-term dangers:

Barbour also delivered an oral message to Ben Gurion regarding the request for two American visits a year to Dimona. Ben Gurion responded that in his 1961 Waldorf-Astoria meeting with Kennedy he was not asked for such a biannual visit arrangement and that he did not agree to it; rather, Kennedy had asked then for a one-time visit of a representative from a neutral state. Barbour replied that he (Barbour) probably misformulated the American request, and that the United States was asking for an Israeli consent to such visits. The problem, Barbour added, was that none of the small neutral states cared about the issue. Ben Gurion responded that he would consult about it with Foreign Minister Meir.³⁸

Kennedy’s cool response did not deter Ben Gurion. On 7 May he sent a direct message to Myer Feldman at the White House, notifying him of his disappointment with Kennedy’s response and that he would continue his dialogue with Kennedy on Israeli security issues.³⁹ On 8 May the draft of the new Ben Gurion letter was the subject of discussion at the Foreign Ministry. The consensus among the senior Israeli diplomats was that, in the first round of correspondence, Ben Gurion failed to reach his objectives. Gideon Rafael, then deputy director-general of the Foreign Ministry, said that the correspondence must stop immediately and the latest letter should not be sent. He said that Ben Gurion’s assessment of the situation “looks sick,” and that “the Prime Minister must not speak about something that seems sick.” As to Ben Gurion’s reference to things that would happen after his death, Rafael commented that, “this would remind Kennedy of the mentality of old men.”⁴⁰

Despite the suggestions for substantial and stylistic changes, Ben Gurion accepted only a few changes to the draft. Four days later, on 12 May, he sent another long letter (nine pages) to Kennedy.⁴¹ This letter, too, was pessimistic in tone. Ben Gurion again drew on the memory of the Holocaust, pointing out that “Arab leaders [were] praising Hitler as the liberator of mankind and praying for his success.”⁴²

Israel’s nuclear program was just beneath Ben Gurion’s concerns. Without stating it directly, Ben Gurion provided the explanation for Israel’s nuclear weapons program: to ensure that another Holocaust would not be inflicted on the Jewish people, Israel must be able to threaten a potential perpetrator with annihilation.

Ben Gurion was still reluctant to connect the Dimona reactor explicitly to Israel’s security. His 12 May letter does not contain any reference to Dimona. Ben Gurion simply ignored Kennedy’s reference to the development of “advanced offensive systems” and his two recent requests for semiannual visits to Dimona. Instead, Ben Gurion linked the Holocaust to Israel’s need for external security guarantees, saying that the best way to prevent another Holocaust was a joint action by the two superpowers. Acknowledging Kennedy’s view that such joint action was politically impossible, Ben Gurion asked the United States to conclude a “Bilateral Security Agreement” with Israel, sell more arms to Israel in order to balance the new Soviet supply to the Arabs, and propose a plan for general disarmament in the Middle East.

Ben Gurion was not content with quiet diplomacy. A day after sending this letter to Kennedy, and without waiting for Kennedy’s response, Ben Gurion criticized the Kennedy administration in a speech to the Knesset, claiming that its policy of limiting the arms race in the Middle East was “one-sided” and likely “to intensify the danger of war” in the region. He also made public his proposal for a joint action by the United States and the Soviet Union to bring about general disarmament in the region and to guarantee the territorial integrity of all Middle Eastern states. In a reference to Kennedy’s policies, Ben Gurion expressed regret that “not all our friends” understood “the vital need to increase the deterrent strength of the Israeli defense forces as the most effective means of preserving peace” in the region.⁴³

Ben Gurion had long been attracted to the notion of an American security guarantee for Israel, but by the mid-1950s he realized this was infeasible. As noted earlier, his decision to build the nuclear reactor in Dimona was, to some extent, the result of that realization. In late 1957 Ben Gurion explored the possibility of forming an alliance between Israel and NATO, but these efforts also failed. The Kennedy administration told Israel—the last time in the December 1962 meeting between Meir and Kennedy—that it was committed to Israel’s defense in case of an Arab surprise attack and that a formal security arrangement was not necessary for Israel (or useful to the United States).⁴⁴ In 1963 Ben Gurion must also have known that a joint superpowers action was impossible. Why, then, was he waging this doomed campaign?

There are no simple answers to this puzzle.⁴⁵ Kennedy’s continued pressure on Dimona may provide an explanation. Ben Gurion knew how brutal U.S. pressure could be,⁴⁶ and he had good reasons to be anxious about an American effort to halt Israel’s nuclear program. Ben Gurion’s pledge to Kennedy two years earlier and Kennedy’s views on nuclear weapons proliferation complicated matters for Ben Gurion. He needed changes in the region to link Israel’s nuclear program and its security situation.

In May 1961 he told Kennedy: “For the time being the only purposes are peace … but we will see what happens in the Middle East.” Two years later Ben Gurion could point to the dangers posed by the Arab Federation Proclamation to justify linking Dimona to Israel’s security. If the United States could not give Israel a formal security guarantee, then Israel must rely on its own resources.

NSAM 231 instructed the State Department to develop proposals to prevent the spread of advanced weapons technologies to the Middle East. The small interagency working group formed to devise arms control policies met in April–May, at the time of Ben Gurion’s correspondence with Kennedy. Ben Gurion’s objective was to protect Israel’s nuclear program, while the administration’s objective was to thwart the program’s military potential. Ben Gurion’s quest for an American security guarantee shaped the new American plan for regional arms limitation.

In May the Kennedy administration again focused its attention on the problem of advanced weaponry in the Middle East, with the Israeli nuclear and missile programs at the center. On 8 May the CIA issued a new SNIE (30–2–63), entitled “The Advanced Weapons Programs of the UAR and Israel.” The fifteen lines dealing with the Israeli nuclear program are still classified, but the estimate’s author understood where the Israeli missile program was in early 1963.

Days after the SNIE was issued, McCone briefed President Kennedy and Secretary Rusk on the subject.⁴⁸ Following the briefings, Kennedy wrote his most direct letter to Ben Gurion on the nuclear issue.

On 10 May Ambassador Barbour received new instructions to press upon Ben Gurion the “intensity of Presidential concern for promptest GOI [government of Israel] reply to our proposals for semi-annual Dimona visits, with first visit this month.” The ambassador was told that the State Department suspected that Ben Gurion “may now be attempting [to] throw the question of Dimona into [an] arena of bargaining for things Israel wants from us, such as [a] security guarantee.” Barbour was asked to resist such efforts: “this is [a] matter of global responsibility for USG [United States government] transcending what we expect to be reciprocal give and take in our day-to-day bilateral relations.” Barbour was also warned that Ben Gurion might use “tactic to delay early affirmative reply,” and he should also resist this: Kennedy did not suggest substitution of neutrals for Americans to visit Dimona; rather, Kennedy asked whether it would be helpful to let scientists from neutral countries visit the reactor as well.⁴⁹

On 14 May, the day the White House received Ben Gurion’s second letter and Barbour met Ben Gurion, a seven-page document, entitled “Near East Arms Limitations and Control Arrangement—Plan of Action,” was submitted by the head of the working group to Rusk. The cover letter said that the proposal, which originated as a response to NSAM 231, was based on lessons learned from previous secret probes with Nasser and Ben Gurion (the 1956 Anderson mission) directed at “a serious exploration with the UAR and Israel of a practicable arrangement to prevent further escalation of unconventional weapons in the Near East.” The letter suggested that because of Ben Gurion’s renewed interest in obtaining an American security guarantee, a new American initiative to limit arms “would be highly opportune.”⁵⁰

The plan of action recommended “that the U.S. seek an unobtrusive, reasonably simple, arrangement in the Near East designed to prevent Israel and the UAR from acquiring, at a minimum, (1) nuclear weapons and (2) surface-to-surface strategic missiles. Given the tremendous stakes involved, there should be an immediate confidential probe of Israeli and UAR willingness to cooperate toward this end.”⁵¹ The subject of the plan was “the advanced weapons problem,” linking the Egyptian missile program with Israel’s nuclear program, but its main concern was clearly the latter.⁵² In explaining why the Kennedy administration should seek such an arrangement the memo provided the following reasons:

The plan for action acknowledged that Ben Gurion would be harder to convince than Nasser (“since Israel wishes to rely primarily on its own military capabilities”), but it suggested means under which Ben Gurion might be persuaded to consider such an initiative: exerting pressure on Israel (reminding “that Israel is, ultimately, dependent on the U.S. for security”), and giving a favorable response on American security guarantees.⁵⁴ The best means to pursue this would be by designating a secret presidential emissary who could impress both Nasser and Ben Gurion of the risks involved if the arms race were to escalate to the nuclear level. It emphasized that the goal should not be a single formal agreement between the United States, Israel, and the UAR, but bilateral arrangements between the United States and each of the parties. The ultimate objective was to create “an undertaking by both sides not to develop, test, manufacture, or import nuclear weapons or surface-to-surface missiles which would be ‘strategic’ in terms of the Near East.” The initiative should also promote “peaceful nuclear programs and scientific space research programs [that] would be declared and subject to safeguards, with the nuclear programs preferably subject to IAEA safeguards.”⁵⁵

Even if it did not succeed, the initiative would be worth trying because it would provide the United States a better sense of the positions of the parties involved. In particular, the memo mentioned three side benefits to the United States, even in case of failure: (1) “if we should undertake another initiative in the future, we will have an important point of reference”; (2) it will generate an “educative effect” among the leaders of both sides by having “a better appreciation of the problems, economic costs, and risks involved if they try to develop unconventional weapons”; (3) the United States will have more freedom of action “to pursue unilateral means to stop nuclear escalation.”⁵⁶

Two days later, on 16 May, Rusk forwarded to Kennedy a series of documents prepared by the working group. This was Rusk’s response to NSAM 231. These documents included, in addition to the plan of action, a memo on the framework and tactics for negotiations in the coming months, a draft letter from Kennedy to Nasser, and a paper outlining options for possible U.S.-Israeli security assurances. These documents provide us with the best picture of the emerging American arms control initiative.⁵⁷

The new American initiative envisioned two sets of quid pro quo. The first sought to have the UAR and Israel abjure the development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. Nasser’s missile program, though, had to be stopped first; thus Cairo was to be the first stop in the emissary’s trip. Only a positive Egyptian response would lead the United States to ask Ben Gurion to make a concession on nuclear issues.

Nasser had to be impressed with the gravity of the situation and warned about “Israel’s intent and capability to develop nuclear weapons.” Nasser should therefore have an incentive to sacrifice his failing missile program for Israel’s advancing nuclear weapons project. This, however, was not what the United States had told Nasser since 1961, as it was reassuring him about Dimona’s peaceful purpose. Now the United States had to tell Nasser that he may have to face an Israel equipped with nuclear weapons.⁵⁸

The authors of the initiative recognized that such an arrangement would be of little attraction to Ben Gurion. Israel was on its way to producing nuclear weapons, and it had no reason to exchange it for the unproved Egyptian missile program. The only exchange Ben Gurion might entertain was one involving a U.S. security guarantee. In May–July 1963 the White House, for the first time, started studying what would be involved in such an exchange, concluding that the only way to dissuade Israel from building nuclear weapons was to meet Ben Gurion’s requests for American security guarantees.

Among the documents that were submitted by Rusk to Kennedy on 16 May was a five-page memo entitled “Possible United States-Israel Security Assurances,” in which the pros and cons of two options for American security assurances were examined. One option was through “executive instruments,” either in the form of a unilateral statement presented in a presidential letter or of a bilateral agreement; the other was through a formal treaty. The former cannot go beyond the president’s constitutional powers as commander-in-chief, meaning that “any commitment in advance to use U.S. armed forces in event of attack upon Israel would go beyond powers generally regarded as exercisable participation of Senate or Congress.” A treaty, on the other hand, is a legal document that allows the use of U.S. forces to defend the territory of a foreign state. The documents noted, however, that “even our most sweeping treaties of alliance have stopped short of formal commitment to use U.S. forces under specified circumstances.” The memo thus recommended the executive rather than the treaty approach, and an unclassified presidential letter rather than an unclassified executive agreement.⁵⁹

Komer attached a memo of his own to Kennedy’s, noting that the State Department had difficulties “to adjust to the prospects of a commitment we’ve avoided for fifteen years.” Komer saw the negotiations over the American initiative as lasting “several months,” and ending up “either in a UAR-Israel arms limitations agreement plus security guarantee, or in a nuclear limitation security arrangement with Israel alone.” He noted that the form of guarantee envisioned was “an executive agreement or presidential letter rather than a treaty, essentially to avoid congressional problems,” even though this “falls far short of demands in BG’s latest letter.” In a reference to the failed effort to link the HAWK missile sales to Israeli concessions on the Palestinian refugee issue, Komer noted that “we want to avoid giving if possible before we’ve taped down the quid-pro-quos.”⁶⁰

Following the White House meeting on 17 May, and the material the CIA showed Kennedy on Israel’s nuclear program, Kennedy wrote another letter to Ben Gurion. The letter reflected the objective of Komer’s memo: to nail down the nuclear weapons side of the deal with Israel without yet responding to Ben Gurion’s request for a security guarantee. Kennedy started his letter by saying that he was giving “careful study” to Ben Gurion’s letter of 12 May. Kennedy mentioned the report he had just received from Barbour on the latter’s 14 May conversation with Ben Gurion concerning the American request to visit the Dimona complex. It is on this issue, Kennedy noted, that he should add “some personal comments”:

In the next paragraph Kennedy pointed out the negative effects on world stability that would be caused by Israel’s development of a nuclear weapons capability. Kennedy reiterated the thrust of the CIA memorandum of 6 March:

Notably, Kennedy expressed his opposition to an Israeli “nuclear weapons capability,” not to “nuclear weapons” per se. This reference to “capability” is politically significant, since it preempted Ben Gurion’s ability to make a distinction between having a nuclear weapons capability and having the nuclear weapons themselves. Kennedy signaled his displeasure with any effort leading to the development of nuclear weapons.

After warning Ben Gurion about nuclear weapons, Kennedy reiterated his “deep commitment to the security of Israel,” recalling his press conference of 8 May in which he expressed this commitment. He reminded Ben Gurion that the United States “supports Israel in a wide variety of other ways which are well known to both of us.” At this point Kennedy continued with a hint of a threat or warning,

Kennedy went on to say that he saw “no present or imminent nuclear threat to Israel.” American intelligence on this matter was good, and he was assured “that the Egyptians do not presently have any installations comparable to Dimona, nor any facilities potentially capable of nuclear weapons production.” He ended his letter by reemphasizing “the sense of urgency” he attaches to early assent to the proposal first put to Ben Gurion on 2 April.⁶⁴

In Israel, Kennedy’s letter of 18 May was perceived as “harsh,” even “brutal,” both in substance and form.⁶⁵ It was understood that Kennedy’s opposition was to Israel’s developing a nuclear weapons capability, not just to the production of actual nuclear weapons. The letter showed that Barbour’s request of 2 April for biannual American visits to Dimona came from the highest level, and that it was serious. A new showdown over Dimona loomed. In responding to Kennedy, Ben Gurion had to make a choice: either an independent nuclear deterrent without the United States or a U.S. commitment to Israel’s security without an independent nuclear deterrent. Ben Gurion wanted both, but this was exactly what Kennedy opposed.

Kennedy’s letter caused a “mini-crisis” in Ben Gurion’s inner circle.⁶⁶ The anxiety was reflected in a draft interim letter to Kennedy, prepared on 22 May for Ben Gurion, in which Ben Gurion asked for more time for consultations. Because “your letter … dealt with several problems having momentous significance to my country and its security, … [it] must receive a detailed and elaborate answer.” The draft also stated that “an urgent and careful reply, with collaboration of several of my colleagues in the government” was being prepared now. Ultimately the interim letter was not sent to Kennedy,⁶⁷ and five days later, on 27 May, Ben Gurion sent his substantive reply to Kennedy.

In May 1963, as was the case two years earlier, Ben Gurion was not ready to choose: he wanted to avoid a showdown with Kennedy, but he also did not want to compromise the nuclear project. His 27 May letter to Kennedy focused solely on the nuclear subject. Unlike Ben Gurion’s previous two letters to Kennedy, this one was relatively brief, written in a businesslike, even formal, tone:

A number of points in the letter deserve careful analysis.⁶⁹ Ben Gurion did not challenge Kennedy’s nonproliferation policy, but he made it clear that he did not share Kennedy’s nonproliferation idealism, certainly not the view that Israel’s decision would have dire consequences for the future of nuclear proliferation. He argued that without a superpowers disarmament agreement, the spread of nuclear weapons was inevitable, particularly in the cases of China, India, and some European powers. Hence the success or failure of the U.S. nonproliferation policy would not hinge on Israel’s choices in the nuclear field.

As to Kennedy’s queries and requests concerning Israel’s nuclear program, Ben Gurion followed the same strategy he had used successfully in May 1961:he reassured Kennedy in order to avoid a showdown, but did not compromise the project by foreclosing Israel’s nuclear-weapons option. Ben Gurion reiterated that Dimona was built with French assistance, given on the condition that its purpose was “exclusively” peaceful, and that that commitment was “absolutely binding.” Ben Gurion was less than absolute in his assurance regarding the reactor’s purpose, however: “we should have to follow developments in the Middle East.”⁷⁰

This strategy dictated Ben Gurion’s reply to Kennedy’s request for “semiannual visits” to Dimona. Israel would not accept “a system of formal United States control at the Dimona reactor,” since the U.S. played no part in building Dimona, but as a gesture of good will it would agree “to further annual visits to Dimona, such as have already taken place.” Ben Gurion knew that the United States desired biannual visits, but he explicitly allowed only one visit per year.⁷¹

Another issue on which Ben Gurion refused to yield was the question of the scheduling of the visits. In April Barbour had asked that the first visit be in May 1963. In his letter Ben Gurion told Kennedy that the “start-up” time of the Dimona reactor would not come before “the end of this year or early 1964,” and this should be the appropriate time to begin periodic visits. At this point in time, Ben Gurion wrote, “nothing is going on there except building construction.” Ben Gurion knew that a visit by American scientists to the site during the summer would allow them to see more than he wanted them to see, and he was determined to prevent it. Ben Gurion thus responded favorably to the principle of Kennedy’s request, but refused to commit himself on the details.

Ben Gurion ended his letter by alluding to his 12 May letter. He could have fashioned a more formal linkage between the two issues, saying he would accept American visits to Dimona in return for American security guarantees; or he could have maintained that, in the absence of security arrangements with the United States, and because of the present Egyptian threats, Israel must maintain an infrastructure for a nuclear-weapons option for the future, and, regretfully, could not accept Kennedy’s requests. In his 1961 meeting with Kennedy Ben Gurion hinted at such an eventuality, and his April–May letters laid the moral and political foundations for the possibility that Israel would embark on the nuclear weapons path. Yet Ben Gurion chose not to bring up Dimona or use it as a bargaining chip in the context of Israel’s security needs.

On this issue, as noted earlier, Golda Meir sharply disagreed with Ben Gurion. Meir advocated a bolder stand on the nuclear weapons issue, explaining to the United States that Israel was building Dimona in order to provide for the nation’s security. States do not make compromises on issues of vital security, and Israel should not be an exception. Hence Meir suggested that Israel should reject Kennedy’s demands. The minutes of a Foreign Ministry consultation on 13 June provide evidence of her tough position:

Ben Gurion apparently knew next to nothing about the American plan to send a high-level emissary to the region to explore the American initiative.⁷³ In late May it was decided that John McCloy, one of Kennedy’s “wise men” and his former adviser on disarmament and arms control, would be the ideal candidate for the Middle East mission.⁷⁴ Sometime in late May or early June McCloy was offered the secret mission, which he accepted. On 13–15 June he was scheduled for three days of briefings with administration officials, including a private meeting with President Kennedy on the last scheduled day. According to the plan, McCloy was to visit Cairo on 26–29 June, stay on for a two-week vacation, and end with a visit to Israel sometime in mid-July. In a memo to Kennedy before his meeting with McCloy, Rusk noted that the principal issue Kennedy should discuss with McCloy “is the nature of his response to the inevitable request from Ben Gurion for a United States security guarantee accompanied by joint contingency planning and greater access to U.S. military equipment.” Rusk noted that Ben Gurion made clear that these were his priorities, and added that “he can be expected to insist on these being met as the price of cooperation on an arms limitation agreement which would mean foregoing the technological advantage Israel has over the Arab states.”⁷⁵ The link between the security guarantee and the nuclear program was at the heart of the McCloy mission.

In the meantime the administration studied Ben Gurion’s reply to Kennedy. On 12 June Bundy was informed by the State Department that all branches of the scientific intelligence community had concluded “that the Prime Minister’s terms fail to meet our minimum requirements.”⁷⁶ The State Department memo went on to spell out why the terms Ben Gurion offered, especially concerning the frequency and the late date for the first visit, would be useless for verification purposes:

Based on these technical considerations, the memo highlighted five specific conditions which would ensure that the visits should be conducted in a manner that would satisfy basic verification requirements. The conditions were the following:

The American intelligence community considered these as minimum conditions, without which it could not do its job. This schedule was acceptable “with some reluctance by our scientists, who would prefer a semi-annual schedule from the outset and who are also most insistent on the need for thoroughness covered in points 4 and 5.” The schedule was endorsed, however, because it “partially meets Ben Gurion’s once-a-year stipulation,” and “because we believe that politically it may be found acceptable.”⁷⁹

These conditions were accepted by the White House and formed the central part of Kennedy’s reply to Ben Gurion. The letter, dated 16 June 1963 and devoted to the Dimona problem, was the toughest and most explicit message from Kennedy to Ben Gurion. Despite Ben Gurion’s efforts to avoid a showdown, Kennedy’s reply showed a presidential determination to confront a problem, which, in Kennedy’s words, “is not easy for you or for your Government, as it is not for mine.” The purpose of the letter was to solidify the terms of the American visits in a way that would accord with these minimum conditions on which the intelligence community insisted. To force Ben Gurion to accept the conditions, Kennedy exerted the most useful leverage available to an American president in dealing with Israel: a threat that an unsatisfactory solution would jeopardize the U.S. government’s commitment to, and support of, Israel.

Kennedy welcomed the two positive aspects of Ben Gurion’s letter: the reaffirmation that Dimona was for peaceful purposes and Ben Gurion’s “willingness to permit periodic visits to Dimona.” Kennedy continued, “Because of the crucial importance of this problem, … I am sure you will agree that such visits should be of a nature and on a schedule which will more nearly be in accord with international standards, thereby resolving all doubts as to the peaceful nature intent of the Dimona project.” Kennedy spelled out the five conditions suggested to him by the U.S. intelligence agencies, stressing that the first visit should take place “early this summer.” Kennedy again changed the wording concerning the frequency of the visits, referring to Ben Gurion’s agreement for “periodic visits,” although Ben Gurion’s letter referred to “annual visits” (Kennedy’s original request was for “semi-annual” visits). The telegram to Barbour also contained instructions for oral comments which he should make to Ben Gurion, particularly that the scheduling request was the result of “the exhaustive examination by the most competent USG [United States government] authorities,” and that they were the minimum required “to achieve a purpose we see as vital to Israel and to our mutual interests.”⁸⁰ The showdown Ben Gurion was trying to avoid now appeared imminent.

Ben Gurion never read the letter. It was cabled to Barbour on Saturday, 15 June, with instructions to deliver it by hand to Ben Gurion the next day, but on that Sunday, Ben Gurion announced his resignation. Ambassador Barbour, who was prepared to deliver the letter to Ben Gurion that afternoon, notified the State Department and asked for instructions. In his cable Barbour noted that although an early visit to Dimona was of the highest importance to the United States, it was unlikely that the issue could be dealt with until a new prime minister took office. Barbour recommended postponing delivery of the letter until the “cabinet problem is sorted out,” and then addressing the letter to the new prime minister.⁸¹

Did Kennedy’s pressure on Dimona play a role in Ben Gurion’s resignation? Ben Gurion never provided an explanation for his decision, except in reference to “personal reasons.” To his cabinet colleagues Ben Gurion said that he “must” resign and that “no state problem or event caused it.”⁸²

Ben Gurion’s biographer suggested that there was no one specific political reason, but that it was his general mental state—manifested by a series of panicky, even paranoid, actions—of the previous ten weeks that led the seventy-six-year-old leader to resign.⁸³ Bar-Zohar speculates that domestic politics, not foreign policy, influenced his decision. Yitzhak Navon, Ben Gurion’s close aide, also believes that the reason for the resignation might have been personal rather than political, and suggests that concerns over his mental deterioration, particularly his loss of memory, might have played a role. Navon does not think that Kennedy’s pressure on Dimona caused Ben Gurion to resign.⁸⁴

Others, however, including ministers in Ben Gurion’s cabinet (Pinhas Sapir, for example), believed that Ben Gurion’s decision was, in part, connected to Kennedy’s pressure on Dimona.⁸⁵ Israel Galili, the leader of Achdut Ha’Avodah, was convinced that Ben Gurion’s sense of failure and frustration in dealings with Kennedy on the matter of Dimona was among the reasons that led to his resignation.⁸⁶ This is also the view of Yuval Ne’eman, who, in 1963, was the director of the Soreq Nuclear Research Center and was involved in the consultations involving the replies to Kennedy’s demands.⁸⁷ Ambassador Barbour also hints that Kennedy’s letters and Ben Gurion’s resignation might have been linked. In his telegram on Ben Gurion’s resignation, he noted: “while probably not a major cause of dissension, this issue [Dimona] was itself not without controversy when Ben Gurion presented it to his colleagues before dispatching his letter May 27.”⁸⁸

Whatever the reasons for his resignation, Ben Gurion’s public and private commitments in his last three years in office, particularly the one in his 27 May letter to Kennedy, undermined his long-term objective: to shield the completion of Dimona’s infrastructure from international pressure. De Gaulle’s reversal on the issue of French aid to Israel and Kennedy’s opposition to nuclear weapons proliferation may have persuaded Ben Gurion that Israel would find it difficult to complete the project, especially in the face of American pressure. Ben Gurion thus concluded that he could not tell the truth about Dimona to American leaders, not even in private.

Ben Gurion, as his critics charged at the time, may have been unnecessarily inhibited. The line he took, however confused and confusing it was toward the end of his reign, presaged much of Israel’s future policy. Ben Gurion’s legacy was not only the construction of the Israeli nuclear infrastructure, but also Israel’s posture of nuclear opacity.