Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XVIII, Arab-Israeli Dispute, 1964–1967

36. Telegram From the Embassy in Israel to the Department of State¹

Tel Aviv, April 4, 1964, 1 p.m.

1009. Feldman had substantive conversations with Meir and Eshkol on Friday.² Discussion with Meir was largely predictable. She emphasized the growing nature of the Arab threat, the recent speeches by Nasser, and especially the Israeli need for missiles and tanks if Israel was to meet the threats. She stated that in view of her understanding that the US Govt knew Israel would not be an aggressor, she could not understand any reluctance to supply missiles and tanks. She went on to say she was personally convinced of the friendship and good faith of the United States but there were other responsible elements in the Israeli Govt that felt their policy should not be predicated on this understanding.

Feldman commented that the basis of Israeli policy had to be faith in the United States. He asked whether there really was any alternative and she agreed that from her point of view there was none. Feldman then pointed out that the acquisition of missiles by Israel in our view was not in the political, economic or military interest of Israel. Mrs. Meir urged very strongly that missiles were a needed deterrent to Nasser’s stated aggressive aims and claimed that his statements were already supported by a large number of UAR missiles, which even in their primitive state could create chaos in Israel.

Feldman commented that this was probably not the view of the govt, but that of the Foreign Minister. Mrs. Meir said that she and Eshkol did not see things alike but that they both were vitally concerned with whatever defensive needs the current threats from Nasser made urgent. Feldman raised with Mrs. Meir the unfortunate leak in the Jerusalem Palestine story.³ Mrs. Meir came as close to an apology as he has ever heard from her, although she disclaimed any responsibility.

The meeting was attended by Mrs. Meir, Shimshon Arad and Feldman. It adjourned and Mrs. Meir expressed the wish to meet again on Monday.

Discussions with Eshkol later in the day lasted approximately 2 hours and were attended by Kollek, Lubrani and Arad, as well as Eshkol and Feldman. The Prime Minister had asked that this be merely an informal chat. But it developed into substantive discussions. The Prime Minister exhibited considerable concern about the forthcoming visit to US. He pointed out that he had only been in office for six months and his party would soon have to stand for election. Relationship with the United States was always of prime importance. He was extremely anxious that the visit have constructive results. The following items were discussed during the conversation:

1. The Israeli request for missiles, tanks and naval weapons. Eshkol accepted the decision that neither missiles nor naval weapons would be supplied, but said the need for tanks was critical. He claimed they needed them fast and he was hopeful they could obtain them under a grant program. Feldman said a grant program was extremely unlikely and pointed out the merits of maintaining a flexibility as to the source of the weapons. Particularly if the tanks could be obtained at a substantial reduction in price it would be in the Israeli interest to get them from some other nation. (Although Eshkol continued to come back to the United States as a source of supply, Feldman is sure that if the investigation which has been initiated shows that it is possible for the West Germans to supply the M48A3 the Israeli Govt would be completely satisfied.)

2. Missiles. In connection with the tank discussions, Feldman urged that the Israelis restrain their efforts to obtain missiles from France. He said that it was his understanding that they had already purchased 25 such missiles for test purposes. He hoped that there would be no further acquisitions. Eshkol said he did not know how many they had thus far agreed to buy from France. After some discussion however, he agreed to consider not making any additional purchases without prior consultation with the United States. He said Israel did not have the resources anyhow to make any large-scale purchase at this time. In fact an agreement might be possible that Israel would not buy any missiles (Feldman believes he meant take delivery) in 1964 or 1965 and would limit themselves to the 25 test missiles for the time being. However, in view of the threat from the UAR he would have to have the right to keep pace with any missile program of the UAR. He suggested, for illustrative purposes only, that Israel might purchase one missile for every two the UAR acquired. This presupposed some effective method of determining how many missiles the UAR had. Feldman asked specifically whether the Israeli Govt would agree to acquire no missiles if Nasser would halt his missile program. The reply was an unqualified yes. (When this question was asked of Mrs. Meir she did not give the same answer. She felt Israel had to have missiles.)

3. The aid program. Eshkol recited the facts and figures showing the large deficit which he stated was running at the rate of $400,000,000 a year, which the Israeli economy had to overcome. He said that when Italy, with a population 20 times that of Israel, ran only a slightly larger deficit it created a major crisis. In view of the history of United States support for Israel he hoped the aid program would continue at the same level and that the rumors he had heard of a reduced level were not true. Feldman did not respond directly to question. He pointed out the difficulties the entire aid program was encountering in Congress and the need for phasing out all over the world.

4. Desalinization program. Eshkol exhibited considerable interest in American desalinization efforts. He asked when Israel could expect the initiation of the joint program announced by President Johnson. He asked also how much such a joint program would cost and what proportion the U.S. Govt would contribute. Feldman said that the first step would have to be discussions between American and Israeli scientists. These conversations would lead to a clearer picture of what is feasible and what cooperative steps could be taken. However, this raised the question of IAEA inspection of nuclear reactors. Feldman said he had intended to discuss this with Ernst Bergmann, whom he was seeing on Sunday. But it would certainly simplify American problems if Israel would agree to IAEA inspection. At this point Arad and Lubrani broke in with all of the objections to inspection listed Embtel 1008.⁴ Not being equipped with satisfactory responses to these questions, Feldman again referred to the coming conversations with Bergmann and said he would see whether there wasn’t some solution to all these problems. (Feldman believes that if we can get satisfactory answers we may be able to substantially reduce the area of disagreement that presently exists. Urge a more complete response than that contained Deptel 855.⁵)

5. Eshkol asked at the conclusion of the conversation whether it would be possible to prepare an agenda for his discussions with the President and with Secretary Rusk. Feldman suggested that it might be useful to have from him an indication of the subjects he proposes to raise at those discussions. Eshkol promised to prepare such a list and discuss them at a meeting scheduled for Monday. (Would appreciate any instructions on this point. Would also appreciate any thoughts regarding the meeting with Meir and Eshkol now scheduled for Monday. Feldman also expects to see Eban, Sapir, Dayan, Peres and Rabin course of visit.)

He requests this tel be passed urgently White House for Komer.

Barbour

1. Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1964–66, POL ISR–US. Secret; Immediate; Exdis. Passed to the White House.
2. April 3.
3. See Document 30. Telegram 969 from Tel Aviv, March 23, reported that the story of the U.S. decision to drop the “Palestine” designation from passports issued by the Consulate General in Jerusalem was in the local press. (National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1964–66, POL ISR–US) Telegram 975 from Tel Aviv, March 23, reported that Barbour expressed keen disappointment at this to Arad. (Ibid.)
4. Telegram 1008 from Tel Aviv, April 3, requested guidance for Feldman’s meeting on this subject with Israeli Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Ernst Bergmann; it listed several anticipated Israeli objections to IAEA inspections and requested guidance in responding to them. (Ibid., AE 6 ISR–US)
5. Telegram 855 to Tel Aviv, April 3, stated that the Department of State preferred to conduct negotiations on this question in Washington. (Ibid.)