Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, Arab-Israeli Dispute; United Arab Republic; North Africa, Volume XIII

148. Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs (Jones) to the Under Secretary of State (Dillon)¹

Washington, May 26, 1960.

SUBJECT

• Israeli Disappointment over Our Response to Ben-Gurion’s Requests

As you may note in the attached memorandum of conversation (Tab B)² Israel Minister Herzog is disappointed by our note of May 23, 1960 (Tab C) responding to Israel’s request for assistance in arms procurement. He professed to understand the wisdom of our policy of not becoming a major arms supplier to the Near East. At the same time, he felt that Mr. Ben-Gurion left Washington believing he would receive: a) Hawk missiles and b) financial assistance to ease Israel’s arms procurement burden.

Actually, we have done quite well by the Israelis. In offering the $10.2 million electronics package, we are: a) making an arms offer of a magnitude of 10 times that of any previous arms supply to Israel, b) providing Israel with electronics equipment of an advanced type not available to many of our allies, c) affording Israel an opportunity to develop scientific know-how many years in advance of its neighbors, and d) responding affirmatively to what was a significant portion of Israel’s $200 million February 9 request.

On the financial side, we are offering this $10.2 million electronics package on three-year credit terms from the date of delivery, which is not likely to be for another 12–18 months. Meanwhile, other forms of aid to Israel this year are now totaling over $62 million (Tab A). In other words, we are already assisting financially at a rate above the average for the last few years and in fact over the ten years since Israel’s birth. Before the present fiscal year closes, to this $62 million total there may yet be added an $8 million DLF telecommunications loan, and a $10 million Eximbank loan for jet civilian aircraft. Finally, despite our illustrative figure of $5 million, we shall probably in FY 61 restore special assistance to $7.5 million as Congress recommends in its MSA Committee report.

Herzog argued that a token gift of $1 million in special assistance funds would reassure Ben-Gurion of the success of his Washington visit and of our continuing interest in Israel’s security problem. Incidentally, this could be a last-minute play by Herzog to demonstrate his influence in Washington prior to his leaving to become Israeli Ambassador to Canada. If we react favorably to his proposal, we would wish to do so in a manner which would give Ambassador Harman at least as much kudos as Herzog. As we see it, there are two practical alternatives:

1. We sit tight, emphasizing to Herzog, Harman and others that we have done exceedingly well in responding to Mr. Ben-Gurion’s desires. This would be in keeping with the firm position which you and others of us have taken in our conversations with the Israelis when our response to their arms request was being formulated. The risk quite frankly is that in deep disappointment Mr. Ben-Gurion might initiate the unleashing of heavy domestic pressure which might result in directives from outside the Department to yield to Israel’s request to a greater extent than we should.

2. We make some token gesture to Ben-Gurion. This could be as Herzog suggests a special $1 million special assistance gift, on a project other than one of a military character. Alternatively, this gesture could be relaxing the credit terms envisaged for the electronics package so as to allow the Israelis to pay at least a portion of the bill in Israeli currency. This would not be a happy precedent but it would be a very meaningful gesture as far as Ben-Gurion is concerned. It would particularly help him in his struggle with Finance Minister Eshkol, who steadfastly opposes increasing Israeli defense expenditures.

Whichever of the above two alternatives is preferable, it occurs to us that sometime in the near future you might wish to have a friendly talk with Ambassador Harman. Such a discussion in itself would do much to assure the Israelis of our continuing sympathetic concern for their security problems.

I would like very much to discuss this matter with you at your earliest convenience.

1. Source: Department of State, NEA Files: Lot 70 D 304, Ben Gurion Visit. Secret; Eyes Only. Drafted by Meyer, initialed by Jones, and sent through S/S.
2. Only Tab A, not printed, is attached to the source text. A copy of Tab B, a memorandum of Jones’ conversation with Herzog on May 25, is ibid., Central Files, 784A.56/5–2560. On May 24, Jones gave Harman the U.S. reply, dated May 23, to the Israeli arms request of February 9. The note offered $10 million in electronic equipment under a reimbursable military agreement, but did not discuss Hawk missiles. A copy of the note is attached to a memorandum from Jones to Dillon, May 21, summarizing its contents. (Ibid., 784A.56/5–2160) A memorandum of Jones’ conversation with Harman on May 24 is ibid.,NEA Files: Lot 70 D 304, Ben Gurion Visit.