Foreign Relations of the United States, 1950, The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V

484A.118/3–950

Memorandum of Conversation, by the Chief of the Munitions Division (Elliott)

[Washington,] March 9, 1950.

Participants:

Col. Ben Arzi, Military Attaché, Major [Lieutenant Colonel] Avidor, Assistant Military Attaché, Embassy of Israel, Mr. Elliott (MD) and Mr. Hamilton (MD) State

Col. Ben Arzi called today to inquire, prior to his return to Israel on March 13, concerning the status of applications pending in this division for the export of arms to Israel including those items listed in the Ambassador of Israel’s request by Note, dated February 13, 1950.¹

I told Col. Ben Arzi that the entire list of items submitted by the Ambassador was being given a most careful examination within this Government and that the first problem was the question of availability from U.S. stocks since most of the items on the Ambassador’s list were obviously not obtainable from commercial sources. I then told Col. Ben Arzi that if it should appear that any of the items were excess in Government stocks, considering the higher priority of MDA, the very complex question of whether the requested items could be considered as “legitimate security requirements” would have to be explored and a decision on the export made on that basis. I said that the major items of equipment to be obtained from commercial sources such as the jet aircraft and the Sherman tanks would also be subject to the latter consideration.

Col. Ben Arzi repeated his offer to make available, informally, information concerning the strength of the Israel Military Establishment, particularly with respect to items on the list submitted by the Ambassador. He pointed out that even a very broad request for information on the armament situation in Israel might be given informally if the Department desired it. He said that the Israeli Government would not give such information formally since to do so would be sure to involve the Israeli legislature and raise a “red hot” political debate. I told Col. Ben Arzi that when we had proceeded somewhat further in our studies of the Israel requests we might come to him or his successor with a request for detailed information. Col. Ben Arzi said that he could assure me now that any information on the Israeli armament situation would be furnished to me upon request.

I told Col. Ben Arzi that we would try to give him an indication in the near future of our action on the AT–6’s, the radar equipment and the Piper cubs for which applications are pending.

Col. Ben Arzi raised the question of the recoilless rifles and I told him that these items, while being obtained from private manufacturers, were being treated in the same way as the items which are being requested from Government stocks inasmuch as the design drawings and specifications had to be released by the military services. Col. Ben Arzi asked that we take no action on the application of the Foreign Supply Company for the export of recoilless rifles until he had time to examine the commitments being made by the Israel Embassy for the purchase of this equipment elsewhere.²

1. Not printed; but see footnote 2, p. 737.

2. On March 15, David A. Robertson, Politico-Military Adviser in NEA, and Messrs. Rockwell and Elliott exchanged views with representatives of the Munitions Board, the Army, Navy, and Air Force Departments, and of the Secretary of Defense to determine the availability of military equipment sought by Israel and the views of the Department of Defense regarding its export to Israel. Mr. Robertson “explained the political background of the Israeli requests and emphasized that failure of this Government to grant any of the requests of the Israelis for combat matériel could be interpreted as continuation of the embargo which the United Nations action of last August had terminated. Mr. Robertson said that the State Department must depend upon the military establishment to determine legitimate security requirements’ of the Middle Eastern states in connection with requests for arms of US origin.” The consensus of the meeting was that

   • “(1) The inquiry conducted by Defense in January indicated that none of the items sought by the Israelis were available…;
   • (2) Defense would advise the Department of State concerning the availability of all items sought as soon as its current study is completed;
   • (3) Defense has not given its approval to the export of any of the items in question;
   • (4) Defense states that it has not intended to place an embargo on shipments of military equipment to Israel despite its failure to approve any of the items in question and that it is being guided by the policy as laid down in NSC 47/2; and
   • (5) Defense takes the position that it has insufficient information to approve the export to Israel of any of the items in question.” (Memorandum of conversation by Messrs. Elliott and Robertson, 484A.118/3–1550)

   For NSC 47/2, dated October 17, 1949, see Foreign Relations, 1949, vol. vi, p. 1430.