Ben-Gurion’s Political Struggles, 1963–1967
With piercing insight into one of the principal figures of Zionism and modern Israel, this book explores David Ben-Gurion’s political career in the years leading up to the Six-Day War and details many of the crucial issues and events the world is still grappling with. This book traces David Ben-Gurion’s waning years in the Israeli political arena. After his resignation from the office of prime minister in 1963, the “Old Man” soon lost faith in his self-chosen successor, Levi Eshkol, and ceaselessly tried to undermine the latter’s premiership, eventually forming a breakaway party. The events preceding the Six-Day War in June 1967 caught Ben-Gurion by surprise. During the weeks-long “waiting period” before the outbreak of hostilities, he paid little attention to daily security issues. But when war did erupt, he displayed one of his key leadership skills – the ability to formulate an accurate independent assessment of the situation. Of interest to scholars of Israeli politics and history, the book is a lucid, thoroughly researched account of the sunset years of the driving force behind Israel’s nation-state. Zaki Shalom is a senior researcher at the Ben-Gurion Research Institute for the study of Israel and Zionism, Ben-Gurion University and a former Israeli military intelligence officer. His areas of interest include modern Israeli history and Middle East politics.
Israeli History, Politics, and Society Series editor: Efraim Karsh Kings College London
This series provides a multidisciplinary examination of all aspects of Israeli history, politics and society, and serves as a means of communication between the various communities interested in Israel: academics, policy makers, practitioners, journalists, and the informed public. 1 Peace in the Middle East The challenge for Israel Edited by Efraim Karsh 2 The Shaping of Israeli Identity Myth, memory and trauma Edited by Robert Wistrich and David Ohana 3
7 In Search of Identity Jewish aspects in Israeli culture Edited by Dan Urian and Efraim Karsh 8
Israel at the Polls, 1996 Edited by Daniel J. Elazar and Shmuel Sandler
9
From Rabin to Netanyahu Israel’s troubled agenda Edited by Efraim Karsh
Between War and Peace Dilemmas of Israeli security Edited by Efraim Karsh 10
Fabricating Israeli History The “new historians,” second revised edition Efraim Karsh
11
Divided against Zion Anti-Zionist opposition in Britain to a Jewish state in Palestine, 1945–1948 Rory Miller
4 US–Israeli Relations at the Crossroads Edited by Gabriel Sheffer 5 Revisiting the Yom Kippur War Edited by P. R. Kumaraswamy 6
Israel The dynamics of change and continuity Edited by David Levi-Faur, Gabriel Sheffer and David Vogel
12 Peacemaking in a Divided Society Israel after Rabin Edited by Sasson Sofer
13 A Twenty-Year Retrospective of Egyptian–Israeli Relations Peace in spite of everything Ephraim Dowek
23 Jerusalem Divided The armistice region, 1947–1967 Raphael Israeli
14
24 Decision on Palestine Deferred America, Britain and wartime diplomacy, 1939–1945 Monty Noam Penkower
Global Politics Essays in honor of David Vital Edited by Abraham Ben-Zvi and Aharon Klieman
15 Parties, Elections and Cleavages Israel in comparative and theoretical perspective Edited by Reuven Y. Hazan and Moshe Maor 16
Israel and the Polls 1999 Edited by Daniel J. Elazar and M. Ben Mollov
17
Public Policy in Israel Edited by David Nachmias and Gila Menahem
18 Developments in Israeli Public Administration Edited by Moshe Maor 19 Israeli Diplomacy and the Quest for Peace Mordechai Gazit
25
26 Israeli Identity In search of a successor to the pioneer, Tsabar and settler Lilly Weissbrod 27
21 John F. Kennedy and the Politics of Arms Sales to Israel Abraham Ben-Zvi 22 Green Crescent over Nazareth The displacement of Christians by Muslims in the Holy Land Raphael Israeli
The Israeli Palestinians An Arab minority in the Jewish state Edited by Alexander Bligh
28 Israel, the Hashemites and the Palestinians The fateful triangle Edited by Efraim Karsh and P. R. Kumaraswamy 29
20 Israeli–Romanian Relations at the End of Ceauce¸scu’s Era Yosef Govrin
A Dissenting Democracy The case of “peace now,” an Israeli peace movement Magnus Norell
Last Days in Israel Abraham Diskin
30 War in Palestine, 1948 Strategy and diplomacy David Tal 31 Rethinking the Middle East Efraim Karsh 32 Ben-Gurion against the Knesset Giora Goldberg
33 Trapped Fools Thirty years of Israeli policy in the territories Schlomo Gazit
39 Israel at the Polls 2003 Edited by Shmeul Sandler, Ben M. Mollov & Jonathan Rynhold
34 Israel’s Quest for Recognition and Acceptance in Asia Garrison state diplomacy Jacob Abadi
40 Between Capital and Land The Jewish national fund’s finances and land-purchase priorities in Palestine, 1939–1945 Eric Engel Tuten
35 The Harp and Shield of David Ireland, Zionism and the state of Israel, 1937–1963 Eliash Schulamit 36 H. V. Evatt and the Establishment of Israel The undercover Zionist Daniel Mandel 37 Navigating Perilous Waters An Israeli strategy for peace and security Ephraim Sneh 38 Lyndon B. Johnson and the Politics of Arms Sales to Israel In the shadow of the hawk Abraham Ben-Zvi
41 Israeli Democracy at the Crossroads Raphael Cohen-Almagor 42 Israeli Institutions at the Crossroads Raphael Cohen-Almagor 43 The Israeli–Palestine Peace Process Negotiations, 1999–2001 Within reach Gilead Sher 44 Ben-Gurion’s Political Struggles, 1963–1967 A lion in winter Zaki Shalom
Israel: The First Hundred Years (Mini Series) Edited by Efraim Karsh
1 Israel’s Transition from Community to State Edited by Efraim Karsh
4 Israel in the International Arena Edited by Efraim Karsh
2
5 Israel in the Next Century Edited by Efraim Karsh
From War to Peace? Edited by Efraim Karsh
3 Politics and Society since 1948 Edited by Efraim Karsh
Ben-Gurion’s Political Struggles, 1963–1967 A lion in winter
Zaki Shalom
First published 2006 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 270 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10016 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2006 Zaki Shalom
This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2006. “To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.” All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested ISBN10: 0–7146–5652–6 (Print Edition) ISBN13: 978–0–7146–5652–6
To my mother
Contents
Acknowledgments
xi
Introduction
1
1
Ben-Gurion–Eshkol: initial frictions
12
2
The Lavon Affair
23
3
The Dimona and Ben-Barka affairs
36
4
The split with Mapai: the founding of Rafi
57
5
The road to the Six-Day War
65
6
Criticism of the defense policy
79
7
Ben-Gurion confronts the war
92
8
Ben-Gurion’s involvement in the war
106
Summary
119
Notes Bibliography Index
121 129 135
Acknowledgments
As this book is going to publication, it is my pleasure to extend my gratitude to those who made it possible. Special thanks are due to the former director of the Ben-Gurion Research Institute for the Study of Israel and Zionism, Dr Tuvia Friling, for his indefatigable efforts and encouragement in the long process leading to this publication. I would also like to express my appreciation to the present director of the Institute, Prof. Yehuda Gradus, for the support he has offered me in various fields. It is also my pleasure to extend my gratitude to the head of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies in Tel Aviv University, Dr Zvi Shtauber, and the director of the publication unit at the center, Mr Moshe Grundman, for their manyfold help. Thanks are also due to Moshe Tlamim for his professionalism and dedication throughout the process of editing this research. My thanks also to the staff at the National Archives in Jerusalem, who offered unwavering assistance in the collection of the material. Last but not least, my heartfelt gratitude is extended to the administrative staff at the Ben-Gurion Research Institute: to Hana Pinshow and Liana Feldman at the Ben-Gurion Archives, to Yosef Litus and Morris Levi at the computer department, to Lily Adar and Yefim Magrill at the Library, and to Michal Mouyal, Bat Sheva Ben Shimon, Adi Moskovitch, and Ruth Finger at the administrative unit.
Introduction
David Ben-Gurion was 80 years old when the Six-Day War broke out. In a public career spanning over half a century he had experienced periods of depression and frustration as well as moments of soaring hope and dazzling accomplishment. He succeeded in overcoming endless political and military challenges that had threatened the nation and him personally. A short list of Ben-Gurion’s major political decisions, that he made either alone or with his partners in the national leadership, includes the following: the running of the Zionist movement, the ingathering of Jewish exiles, the struggle against the British Mandate, the suppression of Jewish dissident paramilitary organizations (Etzel and Lechi), attempts to rescue European Jewry during the Holocaust, declaration of statehood, the 1948 War of Independence, the absorption of mass immigration, the 1956 Sinai Campaign, and the development of Israel’s nuclear option. Ben-Gurion stood in the center of all of these crucial events. After the War of Independence he seemed to perceive the Arab–Israeli conflict in a different light from that of many Israeli politicians and experts. He believed that the sources of the conflict were rooted in the Arabs’ total rejection of any “Jewish entity” in the Middle East. The more obvious issues of controversy, such as the borders of the Jewish state, the refugee problem, and the question of Jerusalem, Ben-Gurion was convinced, were merely manifestations of the conflict, not its cause. Consequently, he estimated that the Arab states that fought against Israel in 1948 had signed the armistice agreements mainly because of their bitter military defeat and their fear that protracted fighting would exacerbate their losses. The Arabs, he stressed, had not sued for cease-fire because they wanted to end the conflict. They were simply looking for a break in the fighting that would enable them to replenish their forces and continue the struggle under more favorable conditions for them. Under these circumstances, Ben-Gurion believed that another round of fighting between Israel and the Arab states was inevitable. He reckoned that the Arabs would learn the causes of their defeat in 1948 and would improve their abilities. Therefore, the second confrontation might be much more difficult for Israel. He repeatedly stressed that Israel’s security must be ensured
2 Introduction for “rainy days” when its survival might be imperiled by its Arab neighbors. His obsession with defense issues was a direct outcome of those assessments. This naturally left him little time for other pressing issues of state such as nation building, the economy, social problems, and the improvement of the fledgling legal and administrative systems. His abandonment of these issues was not due to disinterest, unawareness, or underestimation of their importance. Rather, it reflected his conscious preference to let his colleagues handle them so that he could be free to deal with vital defense matters and foreign affairs. At the end of 1953, when Ben-Gurion’s political and public stature appeared rock solid, and when no significant opposition threatened his rule, he announced his intention to retire from government for a limited period of time. His closest followers were not surprised. For several months he had been hinting that such a move was afoot. Direct and indirect attempts – some sincere, others not – to dissuade him from taking leave had failed. Before quitting office Ben-Gurion informed his colleagues that he preferred Levi Eshkol, the finance minister, as his replacement He referred to Eshkol as “a man of deeds,” a tireless compromiser unburdened by ideological zeal. Mapai (Ben-Gurion’s center-left political party) rejected Ben-Gurion’s proposal – not because Eshkol’s personality and positions were unacceptable; on the contrary, Eshkol was an integral player in the party mechanism and highly regarded by the party’s rank and file – but because the party leaders rightly estimated that his elevation to the prime minister’s office meant skipping over the “number two” candidate – Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett. This would be interpreted as a vote of no confidence in one of the party’s most respected founding members. Such an unfriendly move went against the prevailing rules of the game in this period. Therefore, Mapai decided to nominate Sharett as Ben-Gurion’s successor even though it knew that Sharett had opposed Ben-Gurion publicly and in closed forums on various political and military issues. Pinchas Lavon, a relative newcomer in Mapai’s inner party circle was named defense minister. This nomination generated much surprise since his field of expertise was in finance rather than security and military affairs, and because of his undisguised propensity toward dovish views. Another new appointment was Moshe Dayan, commander of the army’s Southern Front, who was made chief of staff. This, more than any other appointment, would have far-reaching consequences for Israel. The new government planted the seeds of its own downfall. In retrospect, it is hard to imagine how the party leaders could have believed that such a disparate coalition would possibly remain united for any length of time. The prime minister was Moshe Sharett, a brilliant orator, skilled in politics and diplomacy, but lacking in leadership ability and the competency to steer the country through the turbulent seas ahead. His ability to oversee the country’s defense system, the main focus of Israeli politics in this
Introduction 3 period, was severely limited. The heads of the security establishment and the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) seemed to have very limited respect for his leadership qualities and background in military matters. Therefore they habitually bypassed him, occasionally even disparaging and disgracing him. In the dual role of prime minister–foreign minister, Sharett lacked Ben-Gurion’s leadership élan and talent. His failure to deal effectively with this inherent deficiency naturally undermined his authority. Under these circumstances, Sharett should have reached the obvious conclusion that he could no longer remain in office and would have to tender his resignation. Ben-Gurion would have undoubtedly acted in such a manner under similar conditions. Sharett, however, lacked the courage to make such bold and decisive decisions. He preferred foot dragging, hoping that in the interim he would somehow regain his leadership and authority. He definitely had no intention of threatening to resign if his demands were not met. He must have realized that if he quit, the Mapai leadership would immediately reinstate his main political rival, David Ben-Gurion, or someone else. Sharett wanted to avoid this course of events at all costs and hoped to remain at the helm of the state despite the obstacles. He probably assumed that in the course of time his authority would be accepted, and his leadership stabilized. But external events prevented Sharett from governing in a “business as usual” atmosphere. Prominent among them were the deterioration in state security because of increased Arab infiltration, the loss of a sense of personal safety especially in the peripheral areas of the state, and Israel’s acute political isolation. Sharett was forced to supply spontaneous solutions to the growing range of security violations emanating from the surrounding Arab states. But he had no solutions up his sleeve. Furthermore, he appeared hesitant and irresolute, and failed to convince his people that he at least knew the direction the ship of state should be headed in order to reach peace and security one day. Under these circumstances it seems that Dayan, the chief of staff, acted independently and presented the country’s leaders with an unwritten, tightly organized political-defense doctrine that would answer Israel’s security dilemma. The doctrine contained in-depth analysis of Israel’s relations with the Arab world and policy recommendations. Dayan’s “working plan” basically reflected Ben-Gurion’s views on the nature of the Arab–Israeli conflict. It assumed that the Armistice Agreements were far from being an expression of the Arab world’s unabashed recognition of the results of the 1948 War. Dayan noted three specific areas that the Arabs rejected: the armistice borders, the clear Jewish majority in the country due to the flight of the Palestinian Arabs, and Israeli sovereignty over parts of Jerusalem. Dayan assessed that the Arab world would reject the status quo created in the aftermath of the War of Independence, and would continue the struggle to alter it. However, at least in the early postwar period, it would avoid a major confrontation with Israel. According to Dayan, the Arab world was
4 Introduction forced to restrain itself not because it opposed violent measures, but it was all too aware of its military inferiority vis-à-vis Israel. The only viable option for the Arab world to bridge those two conflicting interests was to maintain a state of “no war – no peace.” In reality, the Arab strategy was designed to wage a low-intensity war against Israel by means of border clashes and armed infiltration. The idea behind this strategy was to spill Israeli blood sporadically and limitedly. In addition, the Arabs would wage a political and economic boycott designed to isolate Israel in the international arena. Dayan calculated that the Arab leaders were convinced that this strategy would best serve their interests. On the one hand, it would demonstrate to Israel and the rest of the world the Arabs’ resolve to challenge the postwar reality. On the other hand, it would prevent Israel from seizing a pretext to launch an all-out war that could inflict a second painful defeat on the Arabs. Dayan believed that Israel was capable of countering this strategy. If it failed to carry out the inevitable struggle, he warned, the Arabs would gain their objective – denying Israel its achievements throughout the war of Independence – without having to pay dearly for it. Thus, Israel had to take advantage of its temporary military superiority and force the Arabs to make a clear decision: either cease hostilities unconditionally, or undertake the risk that the continuation of the no war – no peace policy would eventually lead to an all-out conflict and certain defeat. Basically, Dayan’s strategic concept envisaged the employment of an escalatory policy toward the Arab states. This meant that Israel would respond to border violations by the Arabs with an overwhelming use of force. Dayan believed that this would convince the Arabs that their choice lay between the devil and the deep blue sea: they could either persist in throughout the war of Independence-attacking Israel, and thus run the risk of a major conflict, or they could offer a tepid reaction that would reflect their military weakness. Faced with such a Hobson’s choice, Dayan reckoned, they might eventually abandon the no war – no peace strategy. Sharett flatly rejected Dayan’s policy proposal. He may have accepted on principle Ben-Gurion and Dayan’s “working assumption” regarding the Arab world’s perception of the conflict and stubborn determination to annihilate the “Zionist entity.” However, he refused to see the Arabs’ perceptions as immortal truths, resistant to change. Sharett, unlike Dayan, preferred to keep the conflict at a low-intensity level by avoiding escalation. At the same time, he searched for political initiatives that would convince the Arabs of the advantages – especially economic ones – to be gained from peace with Israel. But developments in the region denied Sharett the required time frame or political stability to prove the validity of his way of thinking. As the scope, intensity, and frequency of Arab violence reached unprecedented levels, the Israeli public demanded that its leaders provide the basic security for a normal way of life. Various sectors in Israeli society harshly criticized the seemingly political leadership’s impotence in guaranteeing public security.
Introduction 5 In addition to Mapai’s concern over the deteriorating security situation and threat of war, it also fretted over voter sensitivity and its influence on the party’s electoral strength in the coming elections. Many party leaders noted a burst of public sympathy for the political opposition, especially Menachem Begin of the right-wing Herut party. Mapai, the dominant political party in Israel was in little danger of losing its hegemony in government. However, in this period the party felt that even the loss of a few seats in the Knesset (Israeli Parliament) was a “disaster.” Mapai realized that if it wished to maintain its present strength it had to immediately recall Ben-Gurion to a key party position. Thus, nearly fourteen months after his “exile” to the desert kibbutz of Sede-Boker, Ben-Gurion was practically entreated by Mapai’s kingmakers to return to a powerful role in the national leadership – the office of defense minister. He replaced Pinchas Lavon, who then became secretary of the Histadrut (Labor Federation), while Sharett remained prime minister and foreign secretary. All the obstacles toward stabilizing the new government seemed to have been cleared away. But the new political framework soon showed cracks. Relations between Sharett and Ben-Gurion were on a short fuse and were seriously marred by their disagreement over two main issues: the nature, scope, and frequency of Israel’s retaliation policy, and the ongoing controversy over the respective turfs of the foreign minister and defense minister regarding Israel’s relations with the Arab world. Psychological differences too probably played a part in souring their relationship. As prime minister, Sharett had a sense of formal seniority over the defense minister. Ben-Gurion had been outside the decision-making circle for months and had returned to political office as a senior minister “in” the Sharett government. But it seems that Ben-Gurion saw things differently. He had been propelled back to power in order to “save” the country and ensure Mapai’s continued hegemony. Mapai’s leadership had floundered without his leadership in the Knesset. Ben-Gurion must have found it mortifying to serve under Sharett, especially since the roles had been reversed for decades. He probably saw no reason for submitting to the prime minister’s dictates. On July 26, 1955, national elections were held. Mapai, still headed by Sharett, suffered a rather humiliating blow, losing five seats (from 45 seats out of the Knesset’s 120, to 40). At the same time Begin’s right-wing Herut party gained an additional seven seats (up fifteen from the previous eight). Since the founding of the state in 1948, Mapai had been the unchallenged dominant party in the Knesset, and thus, the 1955 election results, while not in any way endangering Mapai’s hegemony, were considered a defeat. The party’s fear of the consequences of Sharett’s premiership had been realized. It was clear that an increasing number of the voters disapproved of Sharett’s moderate political-security orientation. The Mapai leadership realized that only a sweeping political and personal shake-up could regain
6 Introduction the public’s confidence. Aware of the voters’ enormous faith in, and support of, Ben-Gurion, the party seemed to have no choice but to ask the “Old Man” back as prime minister–defense minister. On November 3, 1955 Ben-Gurion formed a new government, and Sharett returned to his “natural,” though more limited, spot in the Foreign Ministry. This political change did not, however, improve Israel’s deterrence capability, nor did it create the hoped-for peace and quiet in Israeli–Arab relations. On the contrary, infiltration continued to demoralize the citizenry. At the same time, a huge arms deal between Egypt and the Soviet bloc (the Egyptian–Czech arms deal) threatened to upset the region’s balance of power. Israel’s leaders warned that within two years Egypt would be strategically superior to Israel. Under these circumstances, in early 1956 Israel had to make a strategic decision regarding its policy toward the Arab world: either embark upon accelerated escalation that would lead to an all-out confrontation, or attain a strategic balance that would deter Egypt from an attack and preserve the current status quo indefinitely. The first option assumed that the Israeli– Egyptian conflict was headed toward an armed clash, and that it was in Israel’s interest that the confrontation should take place while Israel still retained military superiority. This was Dayan’s opinion. Sharett favored the second option. He strongly believed that an Israeli– Egyptian war was preventable. Israel, he said, could attain a strategic balance with Egypt by acquiring a large quantity of arms from friendly states. This balance would deter Egypt from launching an attack and convince it, and other Arab states, that they had no military option vis-à-vis Israel. Thus, in the long run, Egypt would be compelled to moderate her position on political settlement. With Ben-Gurion’s return to power, Dayan might have expected to gain free rein in implementing a defense policy consonant with the prime minister’s convictions. Ben-Gurion’s clear-cut statements on defense issues and his readiness to authorize large-scale retaliations presaged a positive attitude toward Dayan’s (rather than Sharett’s) strategy. But Dayan soon discovered that his reinstated patron had grave reservations over an escalatory policy that could lead to all-out war with the Arab states. The more Ben-Gurion realized that the regional power balance was about to turn sharply against Israel – the more he tended to adopt Sharett’s strategic thinking. He repeatedly avowed that Israel had to make a concerted effort to obtain defensive weapons in order to maintain the balance of power with the Arabs. Only in the event that this option failed, would Dayan’s strategy of “escalation toward total war” have to be seriously considered. In the spring of 1956 Ben-Gurion understood that Israel had no chance of procuring weapons from the United States. (This had been Sharett’s desire all along.) At the same time France began signaling its willingness to supply Israel with arms. France’s good will, however, was vaguely related
Introduction 7 to the expectation, and certainly not as a stipulation, that Israel would participate in a move to topple Nasser’s regime. France believed that Nasser was the chief provocateur behind the bloody anti-French uprising in Algeria. Therefore, the overthrow of his regime appeared to be in France’s key interest. French officials broadly intimated that Israeli cooperation with France on this issue would earn it generous dividends. These would include the supply of sophisticated weapons, as well as massive French assistance in developing Israel’s nuclear option. Under these circumstances, Ben-Gurion undoubtedly realized that Israel’s strategic alliance with France depended to a large extent on cooperation in other fields as well, especially regarding Israel’s willingness to overthrow Egypt’s leadership. Needless to say that Israel was as interested as France in such an outcome. Therefore, Ben-Gurion increasingly inclined toward examining the implications of Israel’s participation in a joint effort with France, and probably Britain also, against Nasser. In October 1956 during the Sèvres Conference (outside of Paris), Israel, France, and Britain drew up plans for joint military operation against Egypt. In late October, the three allies launched a major military offensive against Egypt that became known as the “Sinai Campaign.” Ben-Gurion unquestionably hoped that the war would depose of Nasser’s regime. However, as events proved, the scheme not only failed, but Nasser’s domestic and international standing soared to new heights. Ben-Gurion also hoped, openly and secretly, to bring about a change in the territorial status quo with Egypt that would include Israel’s partial control over the Gaza Strip and a land-bridge linking Eilat to Sharm-el-Sheikh (at the southern tip of the Sinai Peninsula). Here too Israel failed to attain its goal because the two superpowers, the United States and Soviet Union, exerted massive pressure on Israel and its two allies to withdraw, almost unconditionally, from the recently captured areas. Eventually, the Sinai Campaign yielded three “formal gains” for Israel: the demilitarization of Sinai, the stationing of UN troops in Sinai, and the guarantee of free passage through the Straits of Tiran. However, the “informal gains” were far more significant. First, they led to a marked strengthening of Israel’s deterrent capability. On the strategic level the campaign reaffirmed Israel’s military superiority and proved Israel’s willingness to unleash its might when national interests were threatened. No state in the international community – and certainly not in the Arab world – could afford to ignore this important lesson. In this light, Nasser was forced to revise his strategic posture toward Israel: Egypt would refrain from further hostilities until it was fully prepared for a confrontation. Egypt also advised other Arab states to avoid belligerent steps toward Israel under the assumption that Egypt would rush to their assistance if Israel retaliated in force. Following the Sinai Campaign and the new Egyptian policy, hostile acts against Israel, especially those emanating from the Egyptian side, fell
8 Introduction sharply. The main areas of friction now concentrated on the Syrian border and to a lesser extent along the Jordanian border. Many observers in Israel interpreted Egyptian restraint as justification for Dayan and Ben-Gurion’s prewar hard-line approach toward the Arab world. The drastic reduction in hostilities by Egypt, which had seriously threatened Israel until the Sinai Campaign, was also seen as proof of Dayan and Ben-Gurion’s claim that infiltration had been part of the Arabs’ systematic struggle against Israel rather than an independent phenomenon as claimed by the opponents of the retaliation policy. The sharp drop in hostile acts, Ben-Gurion’s supporters claimed, was proof that the Arab regimes were capable of exercising restraint when it was in their interest; that is, when they realized that the price to be paid for attacking Israel was far costlier than the advantage to be gained from the attacks. The Sinai Campaign also won positive political results for Israel: its international standing improved. Before the campaign the superpowers had accepted the Arab position that disavowed the 1949 status quo. They had intensely debated the political arrangements – mainly the territorial and demographic ones – involved in changing the status quo. They had discussed Israel’s pullback from the armistice lines and the need to force Israel to resettle a large number of Arab refugees. Although the talks had a critical impact on the fate of the Jewish state, they were conducted without Israel’s participation. The Sinai Campaign radically changed this state of affairs. Israel was no longer seen as a protectorate state whose future was determined mainly by external forces. Now it was viewed as a Middle East power player that no international or regional factor could ignore. In the aftermath of the Sinai Campaign it was clear that no superpower could consider dictating political-territorial arrangements without Israel’s participation in the process. Above all, there was almost universal recognition of the validity of the status quo established after the War of Independence. These strategic and political developments provided Israel with relative quiet along its borders, enabling it to turn its attention to social and economic issues and domestic politics. In retrospect, the interim between the Sinai Campaign and the 1967 Six-Day War was crucial for shaping Israel’s social structure and developing the country’s economic base. The acute political and social crises that occasionally flared up in this period tend to blur the great socio-economic advances that were made. At the same time, these crises testify to the diminishing influence of security issues on Israel’s national agenda. Another major result of the Sinai Campaign was the cementing of the French–Israeli connection in developing Israel’s nuclear option. It seems reasonable to assume that without French–Israeli cooperation during the campaign, France would not have become so deeply involved in Israel’s nuclear program. The acquisition of a nuclear option was undoubtedly one of the most significant achievements for Israel after the war, one that
Introduction 9 enormously altered its image and strategic standing in the regional and international arenas. These gains magnified Ben-Gurion’s political power. Now, more than ever, his desire to bequeath party and state leadership to the young men around him, especially Moshe Dayan and Shimon Peres, seemed within reach. But Mapai’s elders – those who had traveled with Ben-Gurion for years and hoped that after his retirement they and their supporters would inherit his power – would not tolerate this move. They were determined to foil Ben-Gurion’s political plans. This is the background to the internal struggle that rocked Mapai to the core in the late 1950s. Ben-Gurion and his supporters led by Shimon Peres, Moshe Dayan, and Giora Yosephtal stood on one side. They strove to make the most of their patron’s last years in power to guarantee their own status as his political heirs. On the other side stood Mapai’s elders, headed by Golda Meir, Pinchas Sapir, and Levi Eshkol; the leaders of the Achdut Ha’avoda party – Israel Galilee and Yigal Allon; and the heads of the left-wing Mapam party – Meir Ya’ari and Yakov Hazan. All of these politicians tried to stave off Ben-Gurion’s heirs-to-be and ensure their own power positions. The struggle ensued quietly, at a distance from the public spotlight, with only occasional flare-ups over political events. This happened, for example, in late 1957 when Ben-Gurion announced his resignation after Achdut Ha’avoda ministers had leaked to the press the cabinet decision to send a “senior security official” (Chief of Staff Moshe Dayan) to Germany. Ben-Gurion demanded that the ministers who had leaked the information should resign from office. When they refused he felt he had no choice but tender his own resignation – thus bringing down the government. On another occasion the “war of accession” reignited over a major political controversy known as the Lavon Affair. Lavon was the former defense minister who felt that he was unjustifiably held responsible for a botched intelligence operation in Egypt that became known as the “Mishap” (to be discussed in detail later). Lavon claimed that new evidence had come to light testifying to his innocence and he demanded a public exoneration of his role in the fiasco. The government debated the question at length and finally decided to appoint a seven-member ministerial committee (the “Committee of Seven”) to reexamine the case. The wording of the committee’s conclusions lent itself to an interpretation that exonerated Lavon. Ben-Gurion discredited the conclusions. At first his tone was moderate. He refrained from taking administrative measures to enforce his view. Later, he vehemently claimed that such conclusions could be arrived at only by a judicial body and not an executive commission such as the “Committee of Seven.” While Ben-Gurion and the Israeli government were grappling with the recrudescence of the “Lavon Affair” they also had to deal with a number of critical and complex political-security issues. The most important was President Kennedy’s demand for tight inspection controls at the Dimona
10 Introduction nuclear reactor, whose existence was revealed in late 1960. Kennedy’s pressure on Israel peaked in the summer of 1963. The president even threatened Israel with drastic economic sanctions if it failed to adhere to the administration’s demands. Israel was left with two agonizing options: either comply with Kennedy’s dictates and compromise the Dimona Project, or, reject Washington’s demands and risk a confrontation with its major ally on whose support it was heavily dependent. Ben-Gurion tended to adopt the second option. However, he had to face stiff opposition within his own party because of this. Many of his colleagues considered the Dimona Project, which was Ben-Gurion’s brainchild, to be of very limited defensive value, perhaps just a white elephant. Nevertheless, they were prepared to let Ben-Gurion bring the project to completion as long as it did not impair Israel’s political status. Now as it became clear that continuation of the project would lead to a clash with Washington, they assailed the nuclear program and demanded its termination. Other influential circles in the Israeli political system were much more opposed to the nuclear option. They believed it was an excessive, useless, and ultimately dangerous project to national security. The massive American pressure convinced them of the need to curtail the program. Under these circumstances, Ben-Gurion found himself increasingly isolated in the national leadership. He also lost support for his positions on other crucial security and political issues. Against this background, and along with the scars of the Lavon Affair, he realized there was no way he could implement his policies. Faced with such severe constraints he decided to resign from office and the Knesset. On June 16, 1963, he officially announced his resignation, surprising even those closest to him. A few hours later, he reconsidered, and withdrew his resignation from the Knesset but insisted on stepping down from the offices of prime minister and defense minister. Many people wondered if his decision to stay in the Knesset portended his plans to return to power at a future date. His first clash with his successor, Levi Eshkol, occurred a few months after his retirement. The dispute, as it appeared in public, revolved around Ben-Gurion’s insistence on appointing a judicial inquiry to conclude the “Lavon Affair.” Ben-Gurion reiterated his view that only a judicial inquest could pass judgment on Lavon’s role in the “security fiasco.” Most Mapai members opposed reopening the case. Some claimed that the commission that Ben-Gurion waned to set up had no legal basis, others felt that Ben-Gurion’s charges were hypocritical since he himself had not dealt with the issue in a legal framework when he had the authority to do so, and still others avowed that he was blowing a minor “historical” blot out of all proportions because of political, and perhaps personal motives to topple Eshkol’s government at “any price.” This was the backdrop of Ben-Gurion’s eventual split with the party that he and his colleagues had founded decades earlier. It was an unprecedented
Introduction 11 event in Israel’s brief political history. Many of Ben-Gurion’s long-time supporters regarded his extreme step as indefensible. Others, who justified it on principle, thought it lacked political wisdom since it was obvious that his break with Mapai would remove his followers from centers of power for a long time, if not perpetually. Ben-Gurion ignored the advice of his closest supporters and decided to set up a new, independent party – Rafi (an acronym for the “List of Israel Workers and Non-Partisans”). Rafi received a drubbing in the national elections in late 1965, winning only ten mandates. At this point, however, it seems that Ben-Gurion’s aura no longer captivated the public, and merely reflected the wishful thinking of the Old Man’s followers. Moreover, most of the public opposed Ben-Gurion’s implacable struggle against Eshkol in the Lavon Affair. Rafi found itself suspended in political limbo, waiting for a miracle to relieve it of its burden. Salvation came in the summer of 1967. As tension mounted between Egypt and Israel in May of that year, pressure was mounting to establish a national coalition government. Some circles even called for Ben-Gurion’s return to power. The creation of the national unity government on the eve of the Six-Day War symbolized the end of Rafi’s political independence. Shortly after the war Rafi reunited with Mapai, and Ben-Gurion, as on previous occasions, was left out in the cold.
1
Ben-Gurion–Eshkol Initial frictions
Ben-Gurion’s resignation On June 16, 1963, Ben-Gurion announced his resignation from government and the Knesset. Those close to him were aware of his implacable frustration and disappointment. They probably expected that at some point the Old Man would “throw in the towel” and leave office. Still, the timing caught even his closest associates by surprise. Widespread speculation rose as to his motives. Even today, nearly half a century later, we cannot determine the exact reasons for his decision. There were probably several motives for his resignation, and we will examine them from various perspectives.1 According to the political standards of the time, public figures, certainly one of Ben-Gurion’s stature, avoided revealing the real reasons behind their political steps. Like many of his colleagues in office, Ben-Gurion felt that public figures were duty-bound to their political movements rather than to private ambitions. This meant that they were extremely reluctant about discussing openly their political decisions and personal disagreements related to their political career. Only on rare occasions did they admit their true feelings to their closest associates. Ben-Gurion strictly abided by this standard. Only the formal reasons for his resignation appear in written documents. However, his description in these documents is light years away from the political reality. He writes as though he wants to convince future readers that his resignation had nothing to do with internal or political disputes. His retirement, so he claims, was due to the fact that he had served a long time in public office, and that he now wished to devote the rest of his life to telling the state’s young generation the marvelous story of Israel’s revival. He impassively notes in his diary that he informed his ministers “that he was forced to resign for personal reasons, not because of a national problem or particular event.”2 Several years later, in a letter to Golda Meir, he elaborated on the reasons behind his decision to resign. He claimed that it was due to exhaustion after many years at the helm of state, and it was his dream to write the history of the Zionist Movement, the Yishuv, and the State of Israel: “I resigned
Ben-Gurion–Eshkol: initial frictions 13 from government in June 1963,” he wrote to Golda, not because of any shortcomings in the party, but because I came to the conclusion that after serving the public for over thirty years, and at my age, I had had enough. [I served] fifteen years on the Zionist Executive and fifteen years in state office. I have decided to quit political office for good and begin writing the chronicles of the state. In my opinion, [the story] starts with the founding of the first agricultural school at Mikve Israel in 1870 and will continue to the state’s twentieth anniversary. On more than one occasion I have explained that the renaissance of Israel did not begin on May 14, 1948, [the day the Declaration of Independence was proclaimed] nor did it end that day. I feel it necessary to tell young people how the state was established, and what still has to be done to bring it to completion, if this is possible. I am not sure whether my remaining years will suffice to conclude this literary task. It is the work I am currently involved in . . . One of my reasons for retiring was that I did not want a single individual to be [overly] identified with the [development of] state. Therefore, I [handed in my resignation and] I proposed that Eshkol replace me.3 Ben-Gurion must have felt an acute need to relate the story of Israel’s rebirth to future generations. He also attributed great importance to the presentation and preservation of his own legacy in the history of the state. The bulk of historical documentation that he bequeathed testifies sufficiently to this. However, his attempt to depict the importance of historical writing as the main reason for his retirement, while conspicuously avoiding the political background that compelled him to quit office, seems artificial and unconvincing. An experienced leader like Golda Meir, the recipient of Ben-Gurion’s letter and privy to the events that preceded his resignation, must have viewed Ben-Gurion’s explanations with disbelief. Ben-Gurion recommended that Levi Eshkol take his place despite his own criticism of Eshkol in the period prior to his resignation – especially Eshkol’s handling of the Lavon Affair. Ben-Gurion’s choice was overwhelmingly approved by the party. Since Mapai was the ruling party, there was no question that Ben-Gurion’s successor would come from the party’s ranks. Eshkol was the second most important figure after Ben-Gurion so there could be no objection to his succession. The nominating procedures were an inner-Mapai matter.4 A few hours after Ben-Gurion’s resignation, senior party members convened in Foreign Minister Golda Meir’s office. The Old Man’s opponents could hardly contain their satisfaction of his resignation. The previous foreign minister, Moshe Sharett, who had been forced out of office by Ben-Gurion in 1956, proposed accepting Ben-Gurion’s announcement without reservations. Those who knew of the long period of stormy relations between Sharett and Ben-Gurion were probably not surprised. Sharett proposed that Eshkol form a new government. Zalman Aranne (another Ben-Gurion opponent) added
14 Ben-Gurion–Eshkol: initial frictions that “everything be done as quickly as possible.” Pinchas Sapir, another of Ben-Gurion rivals in Mapai, noted there was no reason to be surprised by the resignation. He reminded them that Ben-Gurion’s threat of early retirement had been dangling over the party for the past thirty months. His tone suggested that he was not grieving for the Old Man’s departure. Sapir advised “seeing things realistically,” that is, accepting the resignation and speedily forming a special committee to choose a replacement candidate.5 Golda recounted, somewhat self-righteously, that she visited Ben-Gurion before his resignation and they had a “good talk,” but the next morning “she was stunned. This was an unfriendly act.” In my estimation, Golda’s version is a distortion of reality. To the best of our knowledge, she and Ben-Gurion had a tense meeting during which Golda threatened to resign if Ben-Gurion rejected her demand that Israel’s relations with Germany come under the control of the Foreign Ministry that she headed, rather than the Defense Ministry, practically the exclusive fiefdom of Deputy Defense Minister Shimon Peres. This acrimonious meeting probably removed any lingering doubts from Ben-Gurion over his resignation. He was fully aware of Golda Meir’s power in the government and that her positions would gain overwhelming support if she decided to bring their controversy to the test. Eshkol was the last person to speak at the meeting. Once again he went out of his way to portray the image of a public figure “forced” to assume leadership of the party by his colleagues. He intimated his self-doubts about his suitability for the role. He admitted his “fear of the public” and that “two other [party members] would make far better candidates. [He did not disclose their names.]” He replied bitterly to Sharett’s suggestion that he immediately assume the role, saying “he would not step into every open hole.”6 The next day, June 18, Mapai’s Central Committee convened to discuss Ben-Gurion’s resignation. The Old Man opened the meeting by congratulating Eshkol on his advancement and wishing him success in the new post thrust upon him. He knew Eshkol for many years, and now advised him “not to insist on compromises but to be more resolute in his decisions.” Eshkol repeated his deepest concern over the responsibility he had just inherited. But in a surprising admission of political candor, even before he strengthened his newly attained position, he revealed that he might not follow in Ben-Gurion’s footsteps: “. . . you too, Ben-Gurion, compromised occasionally . . . Today our movement and people need a conciliatory approach now and then.”7 As he was bidding farewell to the Defense Ministry, Ben-Gurion showered Eshkol with compliments, declaring his full confidence in him. But he stressed that Eshkol should make sure that his deputy, Shimon Peres (Ben-Gurion’s young confidant) continued in his role as deputy defense minister. “Although I leave in sorrow,” he said, I step out of office knowing that everything is in capable, trustworthy hands. This fills me with great satisfaction. When I retired ten years ago I proposed that Eshkol take my place. Why he declined then . . . I don’t know. I am glad he has now agreed to replace me.8
Ben-Gurion–Eshkol: initial frictions 15 In the previously mentioned letter to Golda, Ben-Gurion claimed to have recommended Eshkol as his replacement because he believed that Eshkol acted in the national, rather than sectarian, interest. Eshkol had supported him in most of his disputes with other state leaders. In Ben-Gurion’s opinion, the basis of political opposition to him stemmed from opponents’ lack of “statehood consciousness.” But even among his colleagues, Eshkol was an exception. I felt that he [Eshkol] agreed with me [on various issues] not because I was prime minister but because these were his views too. I believed that his approach to issues stemmed from his conviction that national interests must precede partisan or personal considerations. Therefore, Mapai members and the president [accepted my recommendation] and asked him to form a new government. The new government’s composition, platform, and plans . . . reflected the fact that it was a government of continuity, and Eshkol termed it such.9 Here, as in many other statements by Ben-Gurion, the historian faces the dilemma of interpreting Ben-Gurion’s written code. Did he really believe – as his letter to Golda Meir implies – that his supporters acted out of a “higher awareness of statehood” and that his opponents were motivated solely by partisan and personal interests? Could a leader as experienced as Ben-Gurion disregard the sincerity of the opinions of others? Could he reject arguments, and impugn them with personal or political biases simply because they took issue with his judgments? Could he have expected that Golda, also an experienced political leader, would swallow his disingenuous explanations? Such questions stymie the historian and defy clear-cut answers. Ben-Gurion’s statements give the impression that he really believed that his support of Eshkol as heir-designate was a decisive factor in the Mapai leaders’ decision to nominate Eshkol for prime minister and defense minister. By emphasizing his personal contribution to Eshkol’s ascendance to power, Ben-Gurion may have been trying to magnify and justify his future accusations against Eshkol. If so, then Eshkol’s ingratitude toward Ben-Gurion goes beyond politics and becomes a personal issue. Ben-Gurion’s statements imply that Eshkol was to blame not only for the faulty running of state affairs but also for personal misconduct toward someone he should have owed eternal gratitude. In reality Eshkol’s nomination was an entirely different story. For years he had been in the party’s second spot. Prior to Ben-Gurion’s 1963 resignation his status as the Old Man’s natural successor was a foregone conclusion. Furthermore, as finance minister he had wielded enormous power domestically and built up solid power bases. Ben-Gurion’s near-total concentration on military and foreign affairs granted Eshkol a wide berth on social and economic issues. The absolute backing that Ben-Gurion gave him also elevated his status. Eshkol’s compromising and appeasing
16 Ben-Gurion–Eshkol: initial frictions nature further contributed to his popularity in political circles and the general public. It should be recalled that when Ben-Gurion retired from government in December 1953, he recommended Eshkol as his replacement. Surprisingly, he justified his choice by claiming that social and economic issues were of national priority, although it is commonly agreed security matters assumed first priority in this period: “I propose Levi Eshkol for prime minister,” he announced to the party’s political committee approximately one month before his resignation: “The prime minister’s main role now and in the future is economic coordination. Since this job is being done by the Finance Ministry, it is only natural that the finance minister should handle it.”10 However, in 1953 Moshe Sharett had been the number two figure in Mapai’s leadership and had earned international fame and public respect. The choice of Eshkol as Ben-Gurion’s successor would have been interpreted as a vote of no confidence in Sharett. Therefore, the Mapai elders decided to reject Ben-Gurion’s recommendation and nominate Sharett. Nevertheless, since his candidacy had been raised by the “kingmaker,” Eshkol was “marked” as a potential heir – a status that put him in a strong position for premiership a decade later. When Ben-Gurion stood to resign in 1963, it was obvious who his successor would be. The balance of power in Mapai shows that Ben-Gurion had no choice but to recommend Eshkol. In 1963 Ben-Gurion could be sure that the party would not choose someone else. Had Ben-Gurion submitted the name of one of the younger members in his immediate circle, he would have precipitated a full-blown political crisis that would have paralyzed Mapai in this critical period.11 Even before his resignation, a powerful group had emerged in Mapai that actively sought to diminish Ben-Gurion’s political authority. The hard core included Golda Meir, Pinchas Sapir, Zalman Aranne, and Reuven Barkat. Eshkol sympathized with the group but continued to maintain close ties with Ben-Gurion. A “strategic pact” was soon forged between the Ben-Gurion’s Mapai opponents and key figures in Achdut Ha’avoda and Mapam. The aim of this coalition was to reduce Ben-Gurion’s political clout, particularly by disparaging his two protégés – Peres and Dayan. It was obvious that Ben-Gurion’s resignation empowered this powerful group in Mapai to determine the inheritance. While it unquestionably supported Eshkol, Ben-Gurion’s recommendation added a moral imprimatur to the group’s decision. Either way the dice fell – Eshkol would have been anointed. Ben-Gurion admits that he quickly realized his mistake in thinking that Eshkol would pursue the same course as his. Eshkol’s divergence took place gradually. Shortly after taking office Eshkol reiterated his concern over the enormous burden he had to shoulder. He revealed that he felt awkward standing before the public and he even questioned his own ability to carry out the task. He gave the impression of a leader unsure of his ability to navigate the ship of state with the same authority as his predecessor. He often
Ben-Gurion–Eshkol: initial frictions 17 confided that he would eagerly hand back to Ben-Gurion “what he had been entrusted with.” He reemphasized his commitment to continue in BenGurion’s path by consulting with him on key political and defense issues.12
The aborted Ben-Gurion–Adenauer meeting Eshkol’s self-confidence gradually strengthened. When he assumed office he steered clear of political and defense issues, but the more he familiarized himself with them, the more he discovered he could manage them. Surrounded by ambitious people who had waited for the opportunity to oust Ben-Gurion and his proponents from power centers, Eshkol cautiously began taking steps that demonstrated his intention of separating himself from Ben-Gurion’s political-defense line and from Ben-Gurion himself. The more he stabilized his independent status, the less he included Ben-Gurion in decision making. The first indication of tension between the two men appeared a few months after Eshkol had formed his government. At this stage, many party members still sought Ben-Gurion’s advice, certain that this had no impact on Eshkol’s standing. One of the people to speak with Ben-Gurion was Felix Shinar, Israel’s unofficial ambassador to Germany, who brought the Old Man a letter from Chancellor Adenauer requesting a meeting. Shinar urged Ben-Gurion to accept the invitation because of Adenauer’s approaching retirement. Shinar hoped to take advantage of the special relation between the two statesmen in order to reaffirm Germany’s long-term commitments to Israel before Adenauer left office. Ben-Gurion said he accepted the invitation, but would have to clear it through Eshkol and Golda as prescribed by protocol. Ben-Gurion called on Eshkol a few days later for his approval.13 Eshkol must have found himself in an awkward situation. The decision was not an easy one. At this point Eshkol sought refuge in a ploy that became his trademark – he chose to avoid deciding. He refrained from giving an immediate answer but promised Teddy Kollek, for years the head of the Prime Minister’s office and close confidant of Ben-Gurion, that he would decide on it that evening. He may have been hoping that Ben-Gurion would understand the evasive maneuver and cease pressuring him. Obviously a delay of a few hours could not have made it easier for Eshkol to decide. By evening he still had no answer for Ben-Gurion. The next morning Kollek informed BenGurion that, “Eshkol had some doubts about agreeing to the meeting with Chancellor Adenauer.” Eshkol felt that such a meeting could be interpreted as “running after A. [Adenauer].” Ben-Gurion must have been surprised by this reasoning: “This hesitation is strange,” he noted in his diary entry for that day. However, it appears that even at this point Ben-Gurion still looked upon Eshkol favorably and could not imagine that Eshkol was slighting him.14 Several days later the issue resurfaced. The reasons behind Eshkol’s hesitation became gradually clear. Shinar again met with Ben-Gurion and reported that he had spoken with Eshkol and suggested sending Adenauer a message stating that Israel’s German policy would continue along the
18 Ben-Gurion–Eshkol: initial frictions course charted by Ben-Gurion. Eshkol seemed to agree to this approach, but Golda Meir, who had always opposed Ben-Gurion’s policy towards Germany, rejected it. She based her case on the formalities of diplomatic protocol, insisting that Adenauer must initiate the approach to Eshkol. Ben-Gurion told Shinar that he was still waiting for Eshkol’s authorization for his visit to Adenauer although he [Ben-Gurion] had personally discussed the matter with him. Shinar promised to check with Eshkol at their next meeting.15 A few days later Ben-Gurion and Eshkol met at Kollek’s home. Eshkol could no longer keep from telling Ben-Gurion his decision. Probably with apprehension in his heart, he informed Ben-Gurion that he objected to the meeting with Adenauer. Ben-Gurion must have been deeply hurt to hear this. The meeting with Adenauer was very important to him. He believed that his close personal ties with the chancellor might win increased German aid to Israel in many areas. Adenauer was about to retire and his successors might not have the same level of commitment toward Israel. This explains Ben-Gurion’s willingness to swallow his pride and restate his request for a meeting with Adenauer. Ben-Gurion finally realized that his requests had not influenced Eshkol to change his position. Ben-Gurion had to learn the hard way that his “deterrent power” had sharply deteriorated. In his diary he notes laconically: “I did not argue with him about it.”16 Notwithstanding this clash, Ben-Gurion continued to support Eshkol’s leadership, albeit with a heavy heart. He told this to a confidant, Dov Joseph, who urged the Old Man to return to the party’s leadership. But BenGurion seems to have been conflict-ridden over this issue, and preferred to leave the door open for his followers to appeal to him. He gives the impression that he wanted to be cajoled into returning to the national leadership. At the beginning of the conversation with Joseph, Ben-Gurion offered new reasons for his resignation: “The burden was too heavy, almost unbearable, especially the defense portfolio.” But he felt he could retire without undue distress because “there were two colleagues who could be counted upon – Eshkol and Shimon Peres.” Joseph could not restrain himself, “[But] the people trust only you.” Ben-Gurion was undoubtedly pleased to hear this but made no response. Joseph warned him that an irreconcilable situation was developing in the leadership that could block Ben-Gurion’s return to the prime minister’s office. Ben-Gurion kept his aplomb (at least outwardly): “I told [Joseph] that I had no intention of [returning to power] and I did not mind if the path was blocked.”17 When Reuven Barkat, the secretary of Mapai, offered Ben-Gurion an opportunity to be the keynote speaker at the party’s convention (due to be held in February 1965), the Old Man refused, declaring that he no longer wished to be involved in state matters. He informed Barkat that he could not give the main speech on such an occasion because it would entail state issues. And I’ve decided that once retired I’d no longer speak publicly or privately about defense or foreign policies. I think Eshkol ought to deliver the keynote address.
Ben-Gurion–Eshkol: initial frictions 19 Ben-Gurion probably would have consented had he been pressured more, but such pressure was not forthcoming.18 Eshkol’s speech at the convention must have grated Ben-Gurion’s ears. Eshkol adopted a clever tactic: instead of confronting Ben-Gurion, whose status was still very high even among his opponents, Eshkol preferred to debate with Peres and Dayan. But Eshkol could justifiably assume that everybody knew that the arrows were aimed at the Old Man. The conference’s standing committee put the resolutions to a vote. Ben-Gurion disagreed with some of them, referring to them as “strange,” and asked to be given the opportunity to express his reservations, but the committee refused.19 Despite the growing friction with Ben-Gurion on both the political and personal level, Eshkol was careful – at this stage – not to make major security decisions without consulting his predecessor. For example, Eshkol asked Ben-Gurion’s advice about the appointment of senior officers to the general staff. The chief of staff, Zvi Tzur, was to step down in early January 1964 and Yitzhak Rabin to be appointed in his place. Tzur reported to Ben-Gurion that Ezer Weizman, the Israeli Air Force commander, would be promoted to deputy chief of staff and Chaim Bar-Lev would become the commanding officer of the Northern Command. Weizman, however, refused to vacate his post and assume his new role without a guarantee that his replacement would be Colonel Motti Hod. Rabin, the chief of staff-designate, opposed this promotion. He wanted someone else for the job. Ben-Gurion too had his own ideas on the matter. He agreed with Weizman’s choice. He regarded Weizman as a daring officer who would balance a cautious chief of staff like Rabin. Ben-Gurion also had qualms about Bar-Lev who appeared to lack the requisite creativity, initiative, and boldness for such a position. “It would be most unfavorable if Yitzhak [Rabin], who will certainly make a good chief-of-staff, has Bar-Lev as his deputy.”20 Discussing the candidates, Eshkol informed Ben-Gurion that he intended to respect the Old Man’s promise to Yitzhak Rabin on his appointment, but he did not know whom to choose for his deputy. It seems that the Achdut Ha’avoda party was putting a lot of pressure on Eshkol to appoint Bar-Lev for the position, thus ensuring the perpetuation of the “Palmach generation” in the general staff. Ben-Gurion told Eshkol in clear terms what he thought about the senior officers: Rabin was “honest, intelligent, and dependable, although somewhat overcautious.” Therefore, in order to balance the scales, a more “activist,” that is, aggressive officer like Weizman should be his deputy.21 Later, Ben-Gurion explained the motives behind his position. As always on the question of senior IDF promotions, Ben-Gurion chose his words carefully: It would be good if [Weizman], a talented officer, became deputy chief-of-staff. I was unsure when I nominated him for commander of the air force because he gave the impression of being an adventurer.
20 Ben-Gurion–Eshkol: initial frictions But it turned out for the best. He proved himself a responsible commander and I believe he will make an excellent deputy chief-of-staff.22 Ben-Gurion had no doubt that Motti Hod was the best man for the job of air force commander: “Yitzhak Rabin’s candidate is too old . . . .” He reminded Eshkol that this nomination was his [Eshkol’s] to make as defense minister: “The defense minister is not obligated to accept the chief-of-staff’s recommendation for appointments.”23 Having been consulted over a sensitive issue as IDF appointments assuaged Ben-Gurion’s anger with Eshkol for vetoing his meeting with Adenauer and his treatment at the Mapai convention. Ben-Gurion’s conduct and statements reflect his yearning to influence decisions on political and defense issues. He may have tried to give the impression, unconvincingly we may add, that he preferred to leave the stage and let his successor take over. However, he seemed quite satisfied when Eshkol asked for his advice. “As a reward” Ben-Gurion sometimes complimented him on his decisions or statements. Later, Ben-Gurion became less forthcoming with his flattery.24 Just before Eshkol met with President Johnson for the first time in June 1964, he found it necessary to calm Ben-Gurion’s anxiety over Johnson’s intentions regarding the Dimona nuclear reactor. Ben-Gurion claimed that Johnson’s offer to assist Israel in the construction of a nuclear-based water desalination facility indicated an American desire “to take over Dimona” (i.e. to impose strict control measures over Israel’s nuclear activity). Eshkol disagreed with that assessment. He thought there was no justification to Ben-Gurion’s fears. For Eshkol to express such an opinion on a super-sensitive security issue that had been the “monopoly” of Ben-Gurion and his closest associates for years shows the degree of boldness and self-confidence that the prime minister had gained in a relatively short time.25 Eshkol also proposed transporting to Israel for reburial the bones of Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the ideological leader of the right-wing Herut Party and Ben-Gurion’s long-time rival. Eshkol was fully aware of Ben-Gurion’s hostility toward right-wing elements in general, and the Revisionist movement in particular. He must have realized that Ben-Gurion’s reaction to such a move would be negative and the Old Man would probably consider it a personal affront. Eshkol spoke with Jabotinsky’s son, Ari Jabotinsky, after the government’s approval of the proposal. He mentioned his dilemma over the issue and his hope “not to get entangled” by it. Therefore he wanted the government’s involvement to appear minimal. Needless to say, this decision did not improve Eshkol’s standing with Ben-Gurion.26 In the middle of March 1964, Kollek told Ben-Gurion of the government’s decision to rebury Jabotinsky in Israel. It is not clear whether Eshkol asked Kollek to inform the Old Man or Kollek himself decided to do it. Whatever the case, Kollek wanted Ben-Gurion not to be surprised by a radio announcement of the government’s decision. Ben-Gurion reckoned
Ben-Gurion–Eshkol: initial frictions 21 that the decision passed in the cabinet with a majority or even unanimously. Once he discovered that the government vote was irrevocable, he indirectly attacked Eshkol for political “cowardice.” If Eshkol really believed in the importance of bringing Jabotinsky’s body for final rest in Israel, Ben-Gurion wondered indignantly, then why did he not suggest this when he, Ben-Gurion, headed the government? “My personal objection,” Ben-Gurion wrote disingenuously, “should not have been an obstacle for Eshkol since the government could decide contradictory to the prime minister’s opinion, as it often did.” That evening, Ben-Gurion learned that the government’s decision had been unanimous.27 Needless to say, Ben-Gurion was disconcerted by the government resolution. Although three decades had passed since his failed attempt at forming a political pact with Jabotinsky, Ben-Gurion still felt rancor toward him, his ideological line, and his followers, especially Menachem Begin. Immediately after the Knesset decision, Ben-Gurion wrote sarcastically and bitterly in his diary: The evening’s papers are naturally full of the historical tale – transporting Jabo’s bones [sic]. Herut [Begin’s political party] had a double celebration yesterday: [Bringing over] Jabo’s corpse [for burial in Israel] and founding the Tchelet Lavan [Blue White] faction in the Histadrut whose aim is to replace the red [socialist] flag.28 Ben-Gurion naturally interpreted Eshkol’s decisions as personal insults even if they were unintended. His own reticence, as well as his muted rhetoric in the diary, reveal little about how he actually felt. The reader has to draw his conclusions by analyzing the context and not by accepting his writing at face value. For example, he noted in his diary with apparent anger and mortification that when he invited Eshkol and Golda to dinner at the hotel where he was staying and told them of his dialogue with President Charles De Gaulle, “Eshkol had to rush off to Tel-Aviv to attend a soccer match against an Asian team.”29 Ben-Gurion learned the hard way that past glory becomes irrelevant in the present. His foes sensed the waning of the Old Lion and that he and his supporters were growing more vulnerable and could be hurt without fear of retaliation. But Ben-Gurion still had the fight in him. His estrangement from Eshkol became conspicuous and his disapproval of the prime minister on most matters grew more heated. Nevertheless, he limited his criticism at this stage to Eshkol’s handling of internal party affairs and his failure to meet his commitment to maintain a “government of continuity.” He wrote to Eshkol in October 1964: For several weeks I have been debating whether to write to you about an issue fateful to our movement. I hesitate for lack of confidence whether we can still discuss such matters candidly. Whether your heart
22 Ben-Gurion–Eshkol: initial frictions is open to hearing harsh and perhaps unpleasant charges, though they are spoken only out of concern and regard for our political movement, not out of spite, anger, or any other personal impulse.30 Later Ben-Gurion completely abandoned this relatively moderate wording. His attitude became vindictive, and he assailed Eshkol’s competency to hold the highest positions in the state. Ben-Gurion launched an uncompromising campaign against the prime minister–defense minister and his supporters both in and outside the government. Ben-Gurion’s brash personality and his adversaries’ indifference to reconciling with him could only lead to his split from Mapai. Ben-Gurion tended to rebuke his rivals on a personal level, and many responded in kind. The alienation between him and Mapai’s leadership became pronounced, lasting even after Eshkol’s death on February 26, 1969. It is interesting to note that a decade earlier Ben-Gurion had raised similar complaints against Moshe Sharett, accusing him of being unfit for the office of foreign minister, and especially later in the dual role of prime minister–foreign minister. The main difference between then and now was that Ben-Gurion had generally attacked Sharett in private and relatively closed forums. Ben-Gurion had been wary of treating Sharett disrespectfully and he avoided inveighing against his moral character. He mostly criticized his suitability to the demands of leadership.31 Ben-Gurion’s persistent, uncompromising, even obsessive campaign against Eshkol reflects his profound disappointment with the person he had chosen as his successor. But the suspicion lingers that personal biases may also have been involved. He had held key power roles for many years that party members, once under his tutelage, now filled. This “reversal” may have led him to become easily insulted and mortified. Also, Eshkol’s growing tendency to exclude him and his circle from Mapai’s inner ring of decision makers must have enhanced his sense of affront. Finally, we cannot totally rule out the possibility that Ben-Gurion’s struggle with Eshkol was due to the Old Man’s secret aspiration – his formal denials notwithstanding – to be asked back to the party’s leadership as he had been a decade earlier.
2
The Lavon Affair
The espionage operation in Egypt The basic issue behind Ben-Gurion’s conflict with Eshkol was the latter’s handling of an extremely complex, still unresolved political-military fiasco, known as the Lavon Affair. It originated in a major Israeli blunder during an intelligence operation in Egypt in 1954. The operation’s aim was to disrupt the rapprochement between Egypt and the Western Powers in general, and Egypt’s relations with Britain in particular. Israel tried to foil, or at least delay, the departure of British troops from Egypt according to the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement. The prevailing assessment in Israel was that the British withdrawal from Egypt would place Israel in grave danger. A special intelligence report prepared on the eve of the sailing stated that the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement introduced “a fundamental change in the present defense alignment in the Middle East.” The report emphasized the dangers that Israel faced as a result of the British withdrawal: 1
2 3 4 5
The transfer of Britain’s main Middle East base to the Egyptians will provide them with excellent military installations. The Egyptian air force will be able to advance much closer to Israel’s border. The removal of an effective buffer between Egypt and Israel will increase the Egyptian army’s ability to move against Israel. Western strategic reserves in the region will be weakened and dispersed to other areas. Egypt’s political status will be strengthened. The Middle East’s status will be altered in the West’s strategic planning.1
The Israeli intelligence operation went horribly awry for reasons that still remain a mystery. The spy ring’s leader may have been a double agent who betrayed the other members. Whatever the reason, the members of the ring were arrested by Egyptian security authorities. Two of them, Moshe Azar and Dr Shmuel Marzuk, both from Egypt’s Jewish community, were executed; another member, Max Binnet, committed suicide; the others were imprisoned.
24 The Lavon Affair
Why were the prisoners forgotten? The “Prisoners of the Affair,” as they became known, received long jail sentences. For undisclosed reasons Israel did not demand their release after the Suez Campaign even though thousands of Egyptian prisoners had been captured during the war. Two of the Israeli prisoners, Meir Zafran and Meir Meyuchas, were released after seven years. The others, Victor Levi, Robert Dassa, Marcel Ninio, and Philip Nathanson remained in confinement. In 1966, American-mediated negotiations between Israel and Egypt for their release came to naught.2 In the wake of the Six-Day War Israel again found itself with thousands of Egyptian POWs (Prisoners of War). Egypt also captured a number of IDF soldiers. A few months after the war the two sides negotiated a prisoner exchange, again under the auspices of the Americans. On October 11, 1967, the Israeli government, under pressure from within and outside the political establishment, decided to release the Egyptian prisoners on condition that the “Affair Prisoners” were also set free. The issue was brought up again in January 1968, and the following month all of the remaining Israeli prisoners were released.3 Some of the “Affair Prisoners” were embittered over the indifference toward their suffering displayed by Israeli authorities. They believed that Israel could have done much more to obtain their freedom. Explanations for Israel’s diffidence claimed that Israel was unwilling to allow Egypt to extract an exorbitant price for their release. Others maintained that senior officials feared that the freed prisoners would open a Pandora’s Box that could undermine Mapai’s hegemony and even upset Israel’s political stability. Shortly before the outbreak of the Six-Day War, Avraham Dar, a highranking officer in the intelligence community wrote to the chief of staff, Yitzhak Rabin, a strongly worded letter regarding the attitude toward the “Affair’s Prisoners”: “During the Sinai Campaign,” he wrote, I was outside the country, serving in the army at the Suez Canal until [Israel’s] withdrawal. It is no secret that I felt the need to go there [to Egypt] in the hope of entering the country by force and in the ensuing fray liberate the prisoners. In the meantime, the government decided to release all the Egyptian prisoners, including generals and other highranking officers, without any attempt to exchange them for our boys – Israelis in every way. They were, and still are, IDF soldiers . . . I don’t know on how many people’s consciences lies the fact that three men and one woman, all IDF conscripts, are still rotting away in an Egyptian jail, as they have been for the last thirteen years. I am forced to raise the matter now that a possibility appears [for their release], even [if it is] a remote chance . . . I hope you will read between the lines as though we had spoken face to face. I’m certain that having brought
The Lavon Affair 25 the matter to your attention you will take responsibility for their fate and do everything possible to seize the opportunity which has come our way to obtain their release.4 A few months after the war, in a letter to the Head of the Mossad, Meir Amit, Dar repeated his demand: Shortly after the Six-Day War I wrote a letter to the chief-of-staff, raising the problem of our prisoners in Egypt. I requested that this time, unlike our conduct following the Sinai Campaign, the release of [our] prisoners would be an inseparable issue in the negotiations for the return of captured Egyptian officers. I understand that the prisoner issue is our highest concern, and that it is your responsibility . . . Therefore, I’m asking you to be uncompromising in that no [prisoner] exchange will take place without this condition . . . During the Sinai Campaign . . . I never imagined they [the Israeli government] would give up so easily on their return . . . Nothing can justify another failure. I hope the doubt and fear that I express are only in my imagination.5 Approximately one month later, Dar rushed off a letter to Prime Minister Eshkol. He recalled that in 1951 he had recruited the members of the spy ring in Egypt, and the following year they were brought to Israel, inducted into the IDF, given training, and received officer ranks. They returned to Egypt to carry out their missions: On two occasions I returned to Egypt to try and rescue them, once immediately after their arrest and the second time during the Sinai Campaign [in 1956]. Duty compelled me to keep silent. Following the Sinai Campaign someone decided to stifle the issue and the Egyptian POWs were exchanged without any attempt at freeing our prisoners. It was the irony of fate that the Egyptian judge, General Digwi, who convicted and sentenced our prisoners, became our captive. Still no attempt was made to exploit the “asset” and gain the release of our prisoners. At the time I was stuck at the Suez Canal and learned about it too late. There was no sense in bewailing [this loss] but I hoped there would be another opportunity to save them as indeed there now is. It would be outrageous if we concede the principle that no [Egyptian] prisoners will be exchanged unless the IDF prisoners in Egypt are part of the deal. The prisoners’ comrades who were active in the underground and Zionist movements in Egypt, as well as the prisoners’ families, believe that our government is doing the best it can and that “All Israel is responsible for one another” – especially for IDF officers. I cannot say what will happen if we disappoint them this time . . . We were trained in the underground, the Palmach, and the IDF not to abandon a comrade on the battlefield. Unfortunately, in this instance we cannot pride ourselves on this noble value.6
26 The Lavon Affair
Who gave the order? In the wake of the botched espionage operation, the execution of two of the people involved, and the incarceration of the others, the question naturally arose as to who was responsible for the catastrophe. Since the issue had farreaching political and strategic implications, the questions were not directed only to the operational circumstances leading to the failure but also to the wisdom in initiating such an operation. Since Israel was almost totally dependent upon the Western Powers, the main question was whether it could afford to take risks that could critically impair its relations with them. Suspicion revolved around two figures, each of whom could have authorized the operation: the defense minister, Pinchas Lavon, and the head of military intelligence, Benyamin Gibli. Neither claimed responsibility, each accused the other.7 The entire affair was investigated in various forums over the years but none of the inquiries succeeded in drawing clear-cut conclusions. After Lavon’s dismissal from government and Ben-Gurion’s return to the leadership, the affair faded away. Like other episodes that had incensed the Yishuv and the state, this one too seemed to disappear from the public agenda. BenGurion certainly should have wanted it to die out. Considering the major political challenges, domestic and foreign, that Israel had to face, political calm and stability were vital to the country. Further rehashing of the affair could only imperil the country. However, by the late fifties, the affair reemerged due to the political struggles waged against Ben-Gurion and his entourage. Senior members of Mapai felt that Ben-Gurion was sidelining them and transferring the party’s leadership to the young cubs led by Dayan, Peres, and Giora Yosephtal. In the summer of 1958, Ben-Gurion had naively expressed this orientation: This afternoon, some colleagues came over to discuss internal [Mapai] affairs. To my dismay, I realized that the situation is much worse than I thought. [Mordechai] Namir, Lavon and others called for the dismissal of Giora [Yosephtal from his position as party secretary]. [They alleged] that he organizes and incites junior party members against the elders. Lavon spoke bitterly of the young ones who seek to usurp authority. I tried to find out who the young ones were. I soon realized that the [veteran members’] anger was directed mainly at Shimon [Peres] and Moshe [Dayan]. I refused to back those charges. On the contrary, I expressed my admiration for both of them and their dedicated, successful work, though like all of us, neither is without blemish. I said that we had to find a way of winning over the young generation that is the future of the nation.8 In mid-1960, Lavon claimed that he had come across new evidence that proved his innocence in the Affair. In early May, Ben-Gurion invited him to
The Lavon Affair 27 discuss the matter. The natural question that Lavon raised was why did Ben-Gurion avoid investigating the affair when he returned to power in 1955, first as defense minister and then as prime minister and defense minister? Ben-Gurion told Lavon that he avoided delving into the fiasco because he doubted whether it was possible to reach any viable conclusions. Lavon responded that he had received more information from Yossi Harel, a senior intelligence officer, that documents had been forged in order to incriminate him (Lavon). Ben-Gurion asked Lavon to show him the material. He promised to refer the material to his adjutant, Haim Ben-David, who would make a preliminary examination of Lavon’s claims.9 In response Lavon demanded that Ben-Gurion publicly announce that Lavon had not given the order to carry out the operation. Ben-Gurion refused, although he acknowledged the importance of the information that Lavon had brought before the committee. To justify his position, Ben-Gurion employed evasive, formalistic reasoning: “I have not investigated the matter,” he allegedly told Lavon, “I don’t know who is innocent, and I won’t make a pronouncement.” Furthermore, Ben-Gurion informed Lavon that since the blame falls either on Lavon or the “senior officer,” then “clearing” Lavon’s name would necessarily mean casting the blame on Gibli.10 It seems that beyond these formalities, Ben-Gurion refused to make a statement exonerating Lavon because he realized that the interminable gnawing at the affair would undermine the stability of his government and reflect unfavorably on him and his associates. On his return to government in 1955 the political situation was amenable for him. Lavon had been ousted from government and compensated with the job of secretary of the Histadrut. In fact, there was a broad consensus that Lavon bore the responsibility for the intelligence fiasco while Ben-Gurion’s disciples, Dayan and Peres, were almost completely cleared of responsibility, and their way to the top of the political hierarchy seemed certain. In response to Ben-Gurion’s attitude, Lavon brought his case before the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Security Committee in October 1960. He told the committee that the issue had compelled him to resign from office as defense minister, and that the matter before them was in the public and national interest and not just a personal judicial issue. Therefore, he disagreed with Ben-Gurion’s assertion that he should direct his case to the legal system. He proposed that either the government itself or the Foreign Affairs and Security Committee decide the case. The press caught wind of Lavon’s statements and the Israeli political system was shaken with an unprecedented uproar.11 The former commander of Israeli intelligence, Benyamin Gibli, also tried to clear his name (in order to remove Ben-Gurion’s blockage of his military promotion). Since Lavon’s loyalists blamed Gibli for the fiasco, Gibli sent a letter to Haim Laskov, the chief of staff, demanding a judicial inquest that would settle the riddle once and for all: who gave the order for the
28 The Lavon Affair intelligence operation? Ben-Gurion, the defense minister, received Gibli’s letter and handed it to the justice minister, Pinchas Rosen.12 Lavon’s conduct not only stemmed from the natural desire to clear his name but was also motivated by practical political considerations. Ben-Gurion’s supporters believed that Lavon had been set up by circles that wanted to sabotage Ben-Gurion’s political position by making cynical use of the intelligence fiasco in Egypt. Naturally suspicion fell on circles in Achdut Ha’avoda, Mapam, and Ben-Gurion’s Mapai rivals. The Old Man noted in his diary, “Almogi [a Ben-Gurion supporter] believes that Lavon has organized a group to defeat the party in the elections.”13
The political implications These developments and pressures forced the government to establish a ministerial committee (October 30, 1960) “to study all the material pertinent to the ‘affair’ and present its conclusions to the government.” This committee was made up of seven ministers, and thus became known as the Committee of Seven. It was headed by Pinchas Rosen, the justice minister. Other members included the minister of the interior, Chaim Moshe Shapira, and the finance minister, Levi Eshkol. The proceedings ran from November 30 to December 21, 1960.14 Rosen was considered an exemplary public official and judicial expert. His presence on the blue-ribbon commission was intended to endow its conclusions with the highest rectitude and objectivity. Even critics of the conclusions would be hard pressed to convince the public that a commission headed by Rosen had been prejudiced or spurious. But it was soon realized that the dominant figure on the commission was Eshkol, whose practical experience and political clout enabled him to counsel the other members, including Rosen, toward conclusions that were politically congenial to him.15 The commission handed its verdict to the government on December 25. It stated, inter alia, that Lavon had not given the order to carry out the unfortunate operation, and that it was done without his knowledge. Although none of the witnesses had been properly questioned, the commission noted that it did not believe the senior officer and that “for the ministerial commission’s needs it was sufficient to state that there was sufficient reason to assume that [Gibli’s] letter, intended to prove Lavon’s responsibility for ordering the mishap, was a forgery.”16 Ben-Gurion was upset by the committee’s conclusions, but he made no attempt to refute them. He only claimed that the commission had exceeded its authority. He pointed out that it was a ministerial committee whose members came from the executive branch. Therefore, it was not authorized to acquit or inculpate the accused. Such a verdict, he claimed, could only come from a judicial body. In its conclusions, he stressed, the Committee of Seven had undermined the democratic foundations of the state that are based on the separation of authorities. Ben-Gurion demanded the formation of a
The Lavon Affair 29 judicial inquiry that would have the authority to call witnesses, interrogate them, and hand down legal verdicts. He repeated this demand on many occasions. In a letter to Golda he wrote: I had a heated argument with Eshkol in 1960 over the ministerial commission that I felt should not have been established at all. The issue it was supposed to investigate should have been brought before a national, judicial body. The Committee of Seven skewed its evaluation and distorted the truth, justice, and basic laws of the state. This was the reason for my resignation. The government has a collective responsibility and I could not be partner to a miscarriage of justice. But I still believed that the members [of the commission] made an innocent mistake, and I stated this in my letter of resignation to the president.17 In early May 1961, Ben-Gurion invited Rosen to his home to explain to him his objections of the committee’s conclusions: “I told him,” Ben-Gurion wrote in his diary, that we had worked together since the founding of the state . . . and [although] we had many differences of opinion, there was always mutual trust [between us]. I would not like to see our ways part in anger. I disagree with his conduct on the committee. As minister of justice I had expected him to act more responsibly than the others. He should have known that acquitting one party meant incriminating the other. Only a court of law can do that . . . I considered the committee’s conduct a dangerous precedent. The procedures of the Committee of Seven were also rather strange. They accepted evidence irrelevant to the issue at hand and questioned witnesses biased in favor of one party yet refused to hear the other party . . . I find Rosen’s explanations unconvincing. I let him know that I respected his integrity and decency but I firmly believed he had made a grievous error.18 Rosen replied that Ben-Gurion’s accusations were without basis. The Committee of Seven, he argued, had not judged the case and had not been so presumptuous as to assume judicial authority. It could neither convict nor exonerate anyone as in a criminal court, and it certainly could not sentence anyone to punishment. In fact, the committee had not convicted anyone. It had drawn conclusions and presented them to the government to allow it to decide whether a special inquiry was needed to clarify the question: who gave the order? The government accepted its opinion that this was unnecessary. On January 31, 1961, Ben-Gurion announced his resignation. The entire government followed suit. It seemed that a major political crisis was about to erupt. There was also the danger of a severe breach of faith with Washington because of the revelations that Israel was constructing a nuclear
30 The Lavon Affair facility in Dimona. Mapai’s elders had to appease Ben-Gurion at all costs to prevent his abandoning the ship of state. On February 4, Mapai’s Central Committee decided to dismiss Lavon from the office of Histadrut chief, as Ben-Gurion’s lieutenants were demanding. The results of the Central Committee’s vote were: 159 – for Lavon’s dismissal, 96 – against, and 5 abstentions. Ben-Gurion claimed with characteristic disingenuousness that he had had nothing to do with Lavon’s sacking – Eshkol had initiated it. Years later, in a letter to the editor of the Hebrew daily Yediot Ahronot, he wrote: In the Yediot Ahronot issue of 5 January 1969, you [the editor] published a letter that leads one to understand that Lavon’s dismissal was the result of David Ben-Gurion’s directives. This is sheer fantasy. As the editor of the paper in which the entire debate over Lavon’s dismissal has been covered, you know that Mr. Levi Eshkol, then the finance minister, demanded it. The whole thing was done without my knowledge. I was not even present at the meeting in which Eshkol’s demand was discussed.19 Despite the denials, Lavon’s dismissal was rightly associated with Ben-Gurion and his supporters. It was hard to hide his supporters’ strong interest in hamstringing Lavon’s political stature. Ben-Gurion even admitted that he would like to see Lavon dismissed from his position as head of the Histadrut. In a letter to Sharett on January 1961, he stressed his disappointment that Lavon held such a senior position in the Israeli political system. However, he also mentioned that he could not remove him from the position, and that even if he had the means, he would not employ them.20 Therefore, although Ben-Gurion was not directly involved in getting rid of Lavon, those who were must have assumed that he would be very pleased if Lavon stepped down. Thus, Ben-Gurion’s repeated denials of involvement in Lavon’s fall were understandably regarded with great skepticism. Ben-Gurion’s frequent use of castigating terms for Lavon (“a man of intrigue and fraud,” “a hypocrite and double dealer”) offered overwhelming proof that Lavon’s dismissal suited Ben-Gurion’s wishes.21 Lavon’s dismissal came as a shock to the public and especially to Mapai. He had been a key party figure for years and had filled several senior positions. In general, the sacking of a high-profile public figure was a rare occurrence in the Israeli political system in this period. Mapai tended to keep internal disputes locked behind closed doors. Lavon’s dismissal was interpreted as Ben-Gurion’s attempt to alter the rules of the game by arbitrarily dictating his position to the party. It will be remembered that a few years previous to this, he had forced another senior official – Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett – to leave office. In that instance, a tremendous effort had been taken to make it look as though Sharett had resigned of his own free will, but the public was not to be hoodwinked. The widespread feeling remained that Sharett had been dismissed from office.22
The Lavon Affair 31 National elections were held on August 15, 1961. This was the last time that Ben-Gurion led the Mapai list. About one month prior to the elections, Israel had launched a research missile christened “Shavit 2.” In a photo-op Ben-Gurion and Shimon Peres stood by the launch pad. There was widespread criticism in political circles over the missile’s launching. It was claimed, probably with justification, that the launch had been timed as a major military-technological media event in order to strengthen Mapai, and especially Ben-Gurion’s position, at the polls. Prior to the elections Lavon’s supporters in Mapai organized themselves into an ideological bloc known as “Min Hayesod” (From the Basis). This group called for a repeal of Lavon’s dismissal, an increase of the Histadrut’s independence in order to strengthen the “Hevrat Ha’ovdim” (the umbrella organization of all of the Histadrut’s cooperative and independent economic enterprises), and greater democratization within Mapai. Min Hayesod also demanded greater ideological-political pluralism in Mapai, and the unification of workers parties while ensuring their autonomy. The group advised its adherents to put a “blank vote” in the ballot box.23 Mapai lost five seats in the elections. It attained forty-two seats in contrast with its previous forty-seven. In the debate that followed, Ben-Gurion tried to present the results as a great accomplishment considering the vigorous opposition the party had to face: From the party’s point of view, this is a great victory, after the vicious, Lavon-abetted mud-slinging of the last ten months, the hate-filled smear campaign of all the minor parties, and the press’s “contribution.” [We managed] to retain the party’s central place [in the Knesset] and almost the same number of representatives as two years ago – this is indeed a stupendous victory. But in the interest of the state – the results are a disaster. The small parties’ corruption, abuse, and power to blackmail will grow. Collective responsibility will disappear . . . Stability will be totally undermined.24 After Ben-Gurion’s resignation in June 1963, the continued handling of the Lavon Affair became a major source of friction between Ben-Gurion and Eshkol. Unlike Ben-Gurion, Eshkol preferred a moderate, compromising, pragmatic approach to political issues, and would have liked to see the affair buried as quickly as possible. Also, it seems that he attached less importance to the Committee of the Seven and its findings than Ben-Gurion did. The theoretical issues that the investigation raised, such as the division of authority among government bodies, seem to have consumed Ben-Gurion with a much greater intensity than they did Eshkol. Eshkol undoubtedly felt that the interminable rehashing of the affair only served to jeopardize his government’s stability. He was probably deeply concerned that the investigation would set a precedent for exhuming other relatively recent scandals and fiascos of the state that could cause immense
32 The Lavon Affair embarrassment to the national leadership: “There will no longer be a government,” he stated during a meeting of Mapai’s Central Committee on December 13, 1964, if I vote in favor of an inquiry into the Lavon Affair . . . We would be opening a Pandora’s box of troubles. It will not end with this affair or with this investigation. We’ll be spending the next fifteen years dealing with investigations into various unsolved matters.25 On May 2, 1964, the pro-Lavon Min Hayesod group convened at Kibbutz Hulda. One of the most prominent initiators of the meeting was Prof. Nathan Rotenstreich from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Academic circles and journalists were Lavon’s main supporters. They issued an ultimatum to Eshkol: either reinstate Lavon or they would bolt from Mapai. With pressure mounting from all directions to forestall a splitting of the ranks in Mapai, Eshkol decided to retreat. He sent a letter to Min Hayesod stating that from his point of view there was no longer any reason to dismiss Lavon. Therefore Min Hayesod members could resume their regular activity in the party. Naturally Ben-Gurion reacted angrily when he heard of this letter (which became known as the “Hulda Letter”). No one, he declared, including the prime minister, could arbitrarily annul a decision ratified by an authorized party body. Several months later Ben-Gurion would write in his diary: “The Hulda Letter was an attempt to turn the party into a herd, [Levi Eshkol] had no authority to cancel a Central Committee decision on a party matter.”26 Responding to Ben-Gurion’s demand for a judicial inquiry, Eshkol claimed, inter alia, that Ben-Gurion had no moral right to discredit the Committee of Seven and its conclusions. After all, he emphasized, the commission was created while Ben-Gurion headed the government. True, Ben-Gurion had reservations about the panel’s handling of the matter but he finally accepted it. He resigned from office only after he saw the committee’s conclusions. If he had stated his objection to the establishment of the committee, then it never would have come into existence in the first place. Eshkol circulated a letter among Mapai members, expanding on his arguments against Ben-Gurion: At the time, Ben-Gurion agreed to a judicial inquiry commission . . . and he also made it clear that if the party and government decided to establish a ministerial committee he would not oppose it nor do anything to counter its formation. On October 30, 1960, during a government session chaired by Ben-Gurion, a resolution was passed to establish a ministerial committee. Ben-Gurion refrained from flooring a countermotion against the ministerial committee or for a judicial inquiry. He abstained from voting in order to express his reservations about [the committee] . . . [From the wording of the government resolution]
The Lavon Affair 33 Ben-Gurion should have known that the committee was authorized to draw its conclusions on the affair. Despite this, Ben-Gurion did not resign from government. If his objections were one of principle or conscience then he should have resigned immediately, as soon as the decision was made to establish the commission – not after it reached conclusions not to his own liking. The committee would not have come into being if Ben-Gurion had just hinted in the cabinet meeting that this would precipitate his resignation.27 In the same letter, Eshkol recalled that on December 28, 1960 he had written to Ben-Gurion that The government decided contrary to your view [about setting up the Committee of Seven], but you stated that if the party wanted to establish a committee – as suggested by the justice minister – you would not oppose it nor do anything to obstruct its establishment . . . Colleagues, we must presume that if the Committee of Seven had not reached conclusions [that Ben-Gurion disapproved of], then none of this whole storm would have risen. At first Ben-Gurion could not resign himself to the way the ministerial committee was dealing with the issue, nevertheless he accepted it. [Later] he rejected its conclusions. Only then, after the committee had drawn its conclusions, did he announce his resignation. I fully believe that if he had stated, or just implied to the government when the committee was formed that he would resign because of it, then the committee would not have been established.28 Eshkol also described the practical obstacles that the judiciary commission would have to face in trying to get to the truth of the affair. He reminded those who were calling for a judicial inquiry commission that the OlshenDori committee which had investigated the affair about six months after it occurred, stated that it was a formidable task to discover who had given the order so long after the event. Eshkol also pointed out that the decision to carry out sabotage in Egypt was made in a meeting between Lavon and Gibli, with no one else present; therefore one man’s word was as good as the other’s. So what benefit could come of another inquest now?29 Eshkol completely rejected Ben-Gurion’s claim that his position on reopening the investigation was solely a “matter of conscience.” According to Eshkol, the Committee of Seven was a blue-ribbon panel made up of seven senior distinguished ministers and headed by Pinchas Rosen, the justice minister. No one had any doubts over Rosen’s judicial experience, sagacity, and personal integrity. He was also assisted by the attorney general. The committee alone was responsible for its conclusions. There was nothing sacrosanct about them, Eshkol stressed. Ben-Gurion had the right to hold reservations about the conclusions but it was wrong for him to claim that this was in any way a matter of “conscience.”30
34 The Lavon Affair Eshkol further stated that Ben-Gurion’s motives for demanding a renewed investigation were less than pure. After returning to government as defense minister in early 1955, and later in July 1955 as prime minister until his retirement in 1963, he had ample opportunity to get to the bottom of the case. With his political and public status at its zenith he could have passed any resolution that he wanted. If he did not do so then, then why was he calling for a reinvestigation now? Eshkol was implying that Ben-Gurion had ethically stumbled in mixing political considerations with principles of state and national interests. While he led the country he refrained from investigating the case lest he destabilize his government. Now, with Eshkol at the helm he suddenly found the reopening of the inquiry panel a pressing need of state.31 Eshkol pointed out that the judicial advisors who examined the material that Ben-Gurion presented to the justice minister had stated that it shed no new light on the case. Therefore there was no reason to assume that the conclusions of a new inquiry would be different from those of the Committee of Seven. Eshkol also asserted that investigation of the affair was more than a judicial matter, as Ben-Gurion repeatedly claimed. It contained negative public and political ramifications that had to be taken into consideration. Governments rarely set up judicial inquiries to investigate the malfeasance of a previous administration. In other words, a precedent would be established that could hinder the activity of future governments. Whatever the case, Eshkol believed that the renewal of the investigating committee would hurt Israel politically and disrupt the realization of its national, social, and economic efforts that demanded the unity of all the forces in the country. Further investigation of the mishap would best be left to the able hands of the historians; the voters had no interest in reopening the wound and nothing of benefit would be gained by it.32 With his characteristic temper, Ben-Gurion scorned all of these arguments. He reiterated that he had given his “silent agreement” to the creation of the Committee of Seven based on the written commitment he received from the chairman, Rosen. The letter stated that “The committee would deal only with procedural conclusions and not ‘material’ ones.” Despite this promise, Ben-Gurion recalled that he had sent Eshkol a letter one week after the panel began its investigation in which he expressed his reservations over the committee’s work. Regarding the charge that he had had ample opportunity to reopen the case yet had done nothing, Ben-Gurion argued that the only issue that interested him was the conduct of the Committee of Seven – not what happened in 1954: The Lavon Affair was foreign to me until now, nor did it trouble me at the end of February 1955 when I returned to office as defense minister . . . I focused my attention on security matters and not on what had happened in 1954.33
The Lavon Affair 35 Ben-Gurion also claimed that when he was prime minister in 1960 he had not set up a judicial panel because most of the ministers and cabinet members were opposed to such a commission. The justice minister explained that only two ministers had the authority to establish a judicial inquiry – the justice minister and the minister of the interior. I was neither.34 It seems very unlikely that a politician as experienced as Ben-Gurion believed that the public would swallow these arguments. Ben-Gurion was far more adept at circumventing procedural obstacles than the ones in this case. If he really wanted to set up an inquiry commission, then the question of who had the authority to call for its establishment would not have stopped him from bringing it to the government for a vote. It appears more likely that he was fully aware of the dangers inherent in carrying out an exhaustive investigation of so sensitive an issue. With his return to the Defense Ministry in February 1955 and Prime Minister’s Office that summer, Ben-Gurion undoubtedly preferred to bury the issue rather than generate a political storm that could wrack the stability of his government. Eshkol’s objection to Ben-Gurion’s demands escalated the already tense relations between the two leaders. Ben-Gurion probably viewed the Lavon Affair as a reflection of the political struggle being waged by the Mapai leadership, together with Achdut Ha’avoda and Mapam, to oust him and his protégés from the seats of power. In his unique style Ben-Gurion inflated the conflict into a blistering personal feud with Prime Minister Eshkol. He frequently denounced Eshkol’s character in public and warned of “the moral destruction that he [Eshkol] and his supporters would bring upon the land.” Ben-Gurion supplied the epitome of his antipathy toward Eshkol and his premiership in September 1965: I wish to confess one of the most serious mistakes I have made since the founding of the state. When I retired from the government in June 1963, I recommended that Levi Eshkol replace me as prime minister. I now realize that Mr. Eshkol lacks the necessary character traits for a prime minister . . . The only great service he could do for the state would be to relinquish his position as soon as possible.35
3
The Dimona and Ben-Barka affairs
Introduction At a certain point Ben-Gurion stoked the flames of his criticism of Eshkol, charging him with responsibility for a “security bungle” that allegedly endangered the survival of the state. Ben-Gurion adamantly refused to disclose any details of the matter. He knew that the public and his opponents judged him as the country’s number one authority on security issues. The secrecy that his accusation was couched in heightened the sense of its veracity that the government was indeed leading the country to the brink. All the while that Ben-Gurion was attacking Eshkol for his incompetence he was also demanding the opportunity to appear before the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Security Committee to present his claims. However, his requests were turned down. Eshkol seems to have feared that the Old Man might disclose top secret security information that would eventually be leaked to the public. In a letter to committee chairman, David Hacohen (MK), Ben-Gurion complained of the unjustifiable refusal to let him state his case, while others, Lavon in particular, had been given the opportunity. He argued the reason for this was the fear that his accusations would jeopardize Eshkol’s status: I do not understand why Lavon was allowed to appear several times before the [Foreign Affairs and Security] Committee [although] he was defense minister for only one year, and why I [who served over twelve years in the post] was refused. You must have been eager to save Eshkol’s honor . . . and you see no need to find out whether there was a breach in security – in my opinion a most serious one.1 In early 1966 a senior figure in Rafi, Avraham Wolffensohn, published an article in Mabat Chadash, Rafi’s weekly journal, in which he analyzed BenGurion’s accusations of Eshkol’s alleged responsibility for a security fiasco. The article included an unprecedented appeal to former IDF chiefs of staff to respond to Ben-Gurion’s charges. The article was directed to Ya’acov Dori, Yigal Yadin, Mordechai Makleff, Moshe Dayan, Haim Laskov, and Zvi Tzur.
The Dimona and Ben-Barka affairs 37 The IDF’s first chief of staff, Ya’acov Dori, who was also a Rafi member, sharply criticized the article and stated that the appeal to former commanders would create an undesirable amalgam of military and political considerations that ran counter to Rafi’s basic principles. After the Six-Day War and the IDF’s dazzling victory, Ben-Gurion became the target of heavy criticism. The army’s management of the war seemed to have completely contradicted his charges against Eshkol’s “security incompetence” before the war. Even during the fighting, Eshkol made note of BenGurion’s unjustified accusations against him. In a speech to the Mapai Secretariat on June 8, 1967, Eshkol tried to prove that even the initial success of the war disproved Ben-Gurion’s incriminations: War is an effort of years of [preparation], layer by layer, brick by brick. We’ve gained experience over the past eighteen years [since the IDF’s establishment]. An enormous amount of work has been carried out in recent years. I always said that these matters [allocating resources for state security] were difficult to evaluate. We didn’t know what Nasser received daily or monthly, what would happen or when everything would come together [become operational]. Even when things were falling apart [in the Arab world] I would say: What would happen if they [the Arabs] united? I believed that if [Nasser] attacked Israel, they [the Arab states] would join the fray out of a sense of jihad [holy war] and Arab national solidarity. One can say that we did everything that could be done, everything the military experts thought was right [to prepare for war]. I’m not an expert [in military affairs]. I served in the army only twice, once as a lance-corporal and [once] as a corporal. I was also a sergeant but was demoted in a trial. But I thought it was my duty to ask questions, raise problems, and push for more and more.2 A few months after the war Yehuda Gotthalf, editor of the Hebrew daily, Davar also broached this subject. As a staunch Eshkol supporter, he used the war’s achievements in order to counter Ben-Gurion’s charges that Eshkol and his government were responsible for a grave “security blunder”: For a long time, [the alleged] security incompetence of the Eshkol government has been discussed in public forums in order to destabilize Eshkol’s political position. Then came the Six-Day War and swept away all the accusations by demonstrating the IDF’s superb readiness for the defensive campaign.3 Such criticism must have stung Ben-Gurion to the heart. After the war he was unjustifiably caught up in a vexing situation regarding the truth to his claims of the government’s “security incompetence.” However, in reality, his allegations had nothing to do with the IDF’s preparedness for a conventional war like that of June 1967. This was obvious even to his critics
38 The Dimona and Ben-Barka affairs who preferred to cynically exploit the mystery surrounding the term “security incompetence” in order to muddle the issues. They realized that the general public would have a hard time differentiating between the specific issues that Ben-Gurion had alluded to and the events that occurred during the war. The Old Man’s opponents presumed that the public would identify Ben-Gurion’s criticism with a general lack of credibility in Eshkol’s security leadership. They believed that once the public saw that the military victory proved his criticism wrong, then Ben-Gurion’s status as “Mr Security” would be undermined. Of course, Ben-Gurion did not remain indifferent to such an attack on his honesty and credibility. Responding to Gotthalf, he stated: There are four inaccuracies in your short article: 1. My allegations regarding security incompetence were never discussed publicly, and certainly never excessively. 2. The allegations were made by one person alone [Ben-Gurion]. This person does not care if he is slandered or his words distorted or refuted because of misunderstanding. 3. The SixDay War proved nothing about my accusations. Your arguments in this respect stem from lack of information and another reason I prefer not to go into but which I presume you are aware of. 4. I never claimed that the IDF was not well prepared for the campaign.4 Fearing that his letter made only a slight impression on Gotthalf and other opponents, he rushed off a second, stronger-worded letter to the editor: Nothing was mentioned to the public [regarding my accusations against his incompetence in security affairs] and I don’t believe your words reflect the general impression in the public. The public is neither in your hands nor Golda’s. Eshkol may think he represents not just the people of Israel but the whole world, and all the generations going back to the patriarchs. I still think that Levi Eshkol bears the enormous responsibility for the “security incompetence.” But the chairman of the Foreign Affairs and Security Committee rejected the committee members’ demands to listen to the person who knows the details and perils of the security bungle. Can you [honestly] say that the security botch won’t lead to a terrible disaster? I know something about security, though perhaps not as much as the chairman of the Foreign Affairs and Security Committee, the editor of Davar, or Golda do.5
Developing the nuclear option The central issue in Ben-Gurion’s charge of “security incompetence” was Eshkol’s policy for developing Israel’s nuclear option. In late 1961, the activity at the Dimona nuclear reactor was dramatically revealed. The timing of the exposure, following the United States presidential elections, led some
The Dimona and Ben-Barka affairs 39 officials to suspect that Israel had initiated the publicity to take advantage of the gap between the changing administrations. The publicity’s purpose was to create a fait accompli before the newly elected Kennedy Administration stepped into power. In late May 1961, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion arrived in the United States and met President Kennedy. The main topic of their conversation was Israel’s nuclear policy. Ben-Gurion pointed out that the Dimona reactor was designed primarily for industrial and economic needs. However, Israel would examine its nuclear policy with an eye to the developments taking place in Egypt and other Arab countries. Prior to the meeting, two American scientists had visited the Dimona facility. They reported no evidence that the reactor was intended for military purposes. Leaders of the two countries agreed to annual visits at the site and for the findings to be shown to the Egyptians.6 These understandings suited Israel’s needs, granting it wide room for its nuclear activity. Washington was also pleased having made it clear that it would not let Israel’s nuclear activity go unwatched. The new Kennedy Administration must have preferred avoiding a confrontation with Israel at this stage. Its attitude toward Israel’s nuclear activity stemmed from various reasons. The main focus of American attention in this period was on Cuba and Fidel Castro. Last but not least, the positive reports of the scientists who visited the reactor undoubtedly influenced the administration’s willingness to treat Ben-Gurion with kid gloves. At some point however, a dramatic change took place in Washington’s attitude toward Israel’s nuclear program. The American Administration displayed a stronger determination to gain control over the Dimona reactor. We believe that it was the outcome of two main developments: in the first place, the administration had accumulated solid evidence that the information that Israeli representatives, including Ben-Gurion, had presented on the reactor’s aims was not truthful. Washington apparently received this evidence from senior French officials well acquainted with the reactor. The American administration began to suspect that Israel had concealed its true intentions from the American representatives who visited the reactor. At the same time a substantial change occurred in the balance of power between Kennedy and Ben-Gurion. By late 1962, Kennedy’s international status had significantly strengthened especially after his handling of the Cuban missile crisis in October of that year. On the other hand, BenGurion’s political and public standing had weakened. Opposition to his leadership had grown in the wake of his intensive involvement in a number of serious political and security scandals such as the Lavon Affair and the case of the German scientists in Egypt. Therefore, a growing tendency developed in the American administration to make a drastic change in its attitude toward Israel’s nuclear activity. In practical terms this meant stronger demands from Israel for stricter,
40 The Dimona and Ben-Barka affairs broader, and more frequent inspections at Dimona. Some administration officials feared that without such supervision Israel would reach the point of no return in its nuclear development. In mid-1963 the Kennedy Administration’s pressure on Israel reached its climax. Ben-Gurion was asked to approve a new method of inspection at the reactor. Washington employed several unprecedented means to force Ben-Gurion to accept its demands. For example, Kennedy made it clear that Israel’s nuclear program was becoming an international menace and that Israel must agree to more frequent inspections at the site. The administration used the “stick and carrot” method – heavy threats on the monitoring issue, while offering a host of enticements designed to soften Israel’s objections. Almost single handedly Ben-Gurion withstood enormous pressure from the Kennedy Administration. A number of cabinet members had expressed grave reservations over Ben-Gurion’s nuclear project from the start. However, they accepted its “continued existence” as long as there were no serious external objections to it. But once Washington exerted its full weight to neutralize the project, many people in the Israeli government began to see the country’s grandiose nuclear program as a liability that was jeopardizing Israel’s relations with its only ally in the international arena. Other political figures totally disapproved the Dimona Project from the outset. They felt it was superfluous and futile. Still others believed it would actually endanger Israel’s security. The two leaders of the Achdut Ha’avoda party, Yigal Allon and Israel Galili, were the program’s strongest opponents. They claimed that even if Israel succeeded in developing the nuclear option, it would not remain the only party in the Middle East with a nuclear option for long. Sooner or later, some of the Arab states would also achieve nuclear capability with the help of the Soviet Union or other countries. The Middle East would become a nuclear zone and the threat to the region’s inhabitants would steadily increase. Furthermore, Israel would be unable to employ its nuclear ability since the geographical limitations of the area meant that its own citizens would be victims of radioactive fallout. Ben-Gurion rejected the Kennedy Administration’s demands on Israel’s nuclear development. However, in order to avoid a confrontation with the administration, he stated that Israel would agree to comprehensive limitations on the region’s arms race (conventional and nonconventional weapons) as part of a settlement with the Arab countries. The administration rejected this position, regarding it as a transparent attempt by BenGurion to stone-wall, enabling Israel to continue its nuclear development. In the summer of 1963, Ben-Gurion found himself in a fragile minority in his categorical support of the Dimona Project. Most of the country’s leaders did not share his strategic concept that the nuclear option was Israel’s ultimate guarantee of its survival. They rejected his view that it was strategically necessary to pursue the nuclear option at any cost, even at the risk of a major crisis with the United States. Under relentless pressure from
The Dimona and Ben-Barka affairs 41 Washington, the majority of Israel’s leaders felt that Ben-Gurion’s adamancy was liable to cause a serious breach with the Kennedy Administration and leave Israel isolated in the international arena. A few months prior to his resignation, Ben-Gurion implicitly revealed to the country’s newspaper editors that he was under tremendous strain because of the lack of broad support for the Dimona Project. Referring to the ways Nasser could be deterred, he stated, I believe it is of vital importance to build up a deterrent force. If [Nasser] knew that we had the power to defeat him, he would be deterred [from attacking us]. This deterrent force would ensure, I cannot say with complete certainty . . . that there will be no war against us . . . I believe we can build up a deterrent force . . . However, I must admit that with regard to this project [our leaders] lack sufficient understanding. This is not a simple matter.7 Indeed, a clear majority in the Israeli leadership held a more lenient attitude than Ben-Gurion’s toward Washington’s demands of the nuclear option. For this reason, as well as other basic disputes and vendettas in the national leadership, especially over the German scientists in Egypt and German–Israeli relations in general, Ben-Gurion came to the realization that he had to resign. It is still difficult for us to evaluate to what extent the nuclear issue played a part in his decision, but most likely it was one of the major contributing factors. Shortly after Eshkol became prime minister and defense minister the American administration renewed its pressure for inspections at the Dimona reactor. On July 5, 1963, Kennedy sent a message to Eshkol recalling Ben-Gurion’s commitment that the reactor would be used only for peaceful purposes. The letter also referred to Ben-Gurion’s “willingness” to agree to “periodic visits” to Dimona. Naturally this was an intentional distortion of the understandings that had been reached with Ben-Gurion according to which “annual,” not “periodic,” visits would take place at the reactor.8 The president also stressed the need to ensure that future visits would be sufficiently thoroughgoing so as to remove any doubt over the real aims of the reactor. In concrete terms, Kennedy suggested that representatives visit the reactor that summer, with another visit planned for June 1964, followed by regular semi annual visits. He made it clear that the visits would have to include all the facilities at the reactor and that the monitors would be given enough time to examine the site extensively.9 The president also noted in his message to Eshkol, as he had previously done with Ben-Gurion, that Israel’s failure to respond positively to his demands would seriously endanger America’s support of Israel: “This government’s commitment to and support of Israel,” he threatened, “could be seriously jeopardized if it should be thought that we were unable to obtain
42 The Dimona and Ben-Barka affairs reliable information on a subject as vital to peace as the question of Israel’s effort in the nuclear field.”10 At the same time, the administration repeated to Israeli officials its assessment that Israel’s nuclear option was not only a “regional” issue but also one that had implications on the United States standing in the international arena, especially vis-à-vis the USSR. The administration stated explicitly that Israel’s claim that it was singled out because of its nuclear option (unlike other countries – first and foremost India) was not valid.11 Eshkol wanted to deal with the issue in his own way. His statements suggest that he was aware of Israel’s overriding interest in the continued development of the nuclear option. Nevertheless, he was not prepared to completely forego a possible understanding with the United States that would include Israeli concessions on nuclear development. He obviously wanted to lower the tone with the United States and have the discussions as low keyed as possible. He regretted that Kennedy had made intimidating remarks in his July 5 message. Eshkol declared that Israel is a small state with no malice toward its neighbors. Therefore, it was unreasonable for the president to be so harsh toward it.12 In the meantime Eshkol strove to gain time, assuming with justification that time was on Israel’s side. He made it clear to Kennedy that before becoming prime minister he had known very little on that subject. Therefore he had to study the issue in depth and consult with his colleagues about further steps on this sensitive matter. Foreign Minister Eban spoke with the American Ambassador to Israel in early July 1963, pointing out that, the new [Eshkol-led] government was only ten days old and had not had time to review the matter extensively. Although the prime minister had an overall picture, he would have to study the subject thoroughly in order to reach a balanced decision, and this would take time. The administration should not expect a quick reply to [President Kennedy’s] letter.13 Eshkol’s attempt to buy time did not succeed at this stage. Washington was fully aware that Eshkol would try to employ this banal tactic. Therefore, it decided to stop him by exerting enormous pressure for an answer to the president’s July 5 letter. Eshkol finally responded on August 19 reaffirming the nature and aims of the Dimona reactor that Ben-Gurion had given Kennedy during their meeting on May 31, 1961. Eshkol also stated that Israel was committed to using the reactor for peaceful purposes in accordance with its agreement with the French government that had assisted in its construction. Cognizant of the special intimate relationship between Israel and the United States, Eshkol stressed Israel’s need to maintain close ties with the American Administration. Therefore, although the reactor had been built with the help of a foreign [not American] agent, Israel agreed to visits by United States scientists.
The Dimona and Ben-Barka affairs 43 Eshkol proposed that the next visit would take place in late 1963 when the French were due to transfer the reactor’s operations to Israel. This would also be before the reactor’s start-up stage. Eshkol emphasized that his government did not consider itself obliged to comply with the president’s demands for semiannual visits. However, at the same time he wanted to avoid escalating tension with the administration that might have unpredictable and unfavorable consequences for Israel. Thus, he chose a vague, non-committal middle path. He simply expressed confidence that an understanding could be reached. As for Washington’s request that its representatives be allowed into sensitive facilities at the site, Eshkol evaded a direct answer.14 Kennedy replied that Eshkol’s letter was most welcome. He noted that he understood Eshkol’s difficulty in formulating his answer. He also praised the prime minister for consenting to “visits on a regular basis” since this arrangement would contribute to strengthening Israel’s security in the long run. He mentioned Eshkol’s approval of a visit by an administration representative at the end of 1963 but requested that the visit take place “while the core is being loaded.” Toward mid-October Washington began pressing for a specific date for the inspection – either at the end of the year or at the latest in early 1964.15 After Kennedy’s assassination on November 22, 1963, Eshkol received a breathing space until the Johnson Administration formulated its position on this issue. Soon Washington was back to demanding Israel’s agreement to monitoring arrangements at the Dimona reactor and its approval to have Egypt informed of its nuclear activity. But now, with Johnson in charge, the White House was much more moderate on this sensitive subject and willing to reach an understanding with Israel rather than dictate conditions to it. Eshkol’s flexibility made things much easier for the American Administration. On February 20, 1964, Johnson sent a letter to Eshkol in which he referred, in terms more moderate and less threatening than in the recent past, to the nuclear reactor at Dimona. The president mentioned his willingness to discuss Israel’s request for conventional arms, and expressed his concern that Israel was contemplating steps that could heighten the Middle East arms race without contributing to Israel’s security. Toward the close of the letter, he noted that the Dimona reactor would be one of the issues on the agenda during Eshkol’s coming visit to the United States so as to avoid an unnecessary increase in Arab antagonism, with the resultant weakening of the forces of moderation. Johnson’s message was a clear signal that the new administration viewed Israel’s nuclear program a matter of considerable importance, but not of the highest national priority as was the case with the Kennedy Administration.16 On March 3, 1964, Eshkol sent Johnson a memorandum, via the American ambassador in Israel, mentioning, inter alia, the administration’s request to assure President Nasser about the activity at the Dimona reactor.
44 The Dimona and Ben-Barka affairs Washington claimed that Israel could attain nuclear capability on its own, but Egypt needed foreign assistance. White House experts believed that if Nasser were convinced that Israel was close to producing nuclear weapons, he would resort to one of two moves: 1
2
A preemptive strike that would include the aerial bombing of the Dimona reactor – probably at the outset of the war. Nasser might figure that such action would attain its objective even if it were only partially successful from a military point of view. One, it would cause a delay in Israel’s development of a nuclear option; and two, an open discourse on Israel’s nuclear activity would ensue, one that would greatly increase the pressure for tighter inspection controls at the reactor. Both results would serve Egypt’s interests. Egypt might call on the Soviet Union or China to supply it with nuclear arms. If Russia agreed, then most likely it would refuse to leave the nuclear facilities under the exclusive control of Egypt. And if Soviet forces were put in charge of nuclear weapons on Egyptian soil, Egypt’s dependency on the USSR would dramatically increase, to the extent of turning the Land of the Nile into a Soviet-satellite state.17
The Johnson Administration was of the opinion that both scenarios were completely at odds with American and Israeli interests. Therefore, it was of vital importance to Washington that Israel calm Nasser about the Dimona reactor. Eshkol, however, made it clear that these considerations did not convince him to change the position in his letter of August 19, 1963, to President Kennedy – a position that reflected Ben-Gurion’s stand: 1
2
Israel would not lower Nasser’s fears of Israel’s military capability. Nasser still harbors belligerent intentions toward Israel and expresses them in public forums. It is vital to Israel’s deterrence that Egypt remained uncertain about the Dimona project. Nasser should not be informed of American–Israeli negotiations on this issue. He cannot be trusted with this information. Should this information be leaked there would be severe consequences – including Israel’s ability to maintain an intimate and secret dialogue with the US Administration on this sensitive issue.18
During Foreign Minister Golda Meir’s talks in Washington in March 1964, high-ranking American officials broached the subject of a tacit understanding between Israel and the United States on Israel’s nuclear development. During their conversation Secretary of State Dean Rusk explained that in a written understanding all possible contingencies had to be taken into account and there was a strong likelihood that the parties would end up in a stalemate. But in an oral understanding each party could agree to the mutual abstention of steps unacceptable to the other side. This
The Dimona and Ben-Barka affairs 45 course of action was based on the assumption that each side would refrain from moves inimical to the interests of the other side. Rusk stressed that such oral understandings existed between the United States and Soviet Union.19 Again we witness a dramatic shift in the US attitude toward Israel’s nuclear option – this time by a statesman who had been firmly opposed to Israel’s nuclear position. His proposal implied a significant retreat in the American position on Israel’s nuclear program – light years away from Kennedy’s line of only one year ago. During Johnson’s meetings with Eshkol in June 1964, the monitoring issue was discussed. Although the president’s attitude was straightforward, it lacked Kennedy’s resolve and menacing tone. Eshkol recalled that, “the president raised the issue without particular firmness, more like one who constantly hints that he considers the matter important and regards our response as proof of our future intentions.” The documents corroborate Eshkol’s impression that the president’s attitude was indeed moderate.20 During their first meeting, the Dimona issue was brought up almost incidentally. Discussion focused mainly on the long-range missiles that Israel was about to receive from France. Eshkol must have found the emphasis on the missile issue very convenient. The United States, it should be noted, had information on Egypt’s development of missile systems. Therefore, it was easier for Eshkol to channel the discussion in the direction of the UAR missile threat and evade as much as possible any substantial debate on Dimona. It seems that President Johnson had already decided to lower the profile on the Dimona project, and according to reports that Israeli officials received, he informed his advisors that he intended to raise the issue with Eshkol “in a reserved manner.”21 During the June 1, 1964 meeting with Eshkol, Johnson expressed his understanding of Israel’s concern over Egypt’s missile program. But he also emphasized that the missiles were still “primitive” and would not pose an actual threat until 1970. Furthermore, Israel could be assured of American support in case of an emergency. He also reminded Eshkol that the US government was violently opposed to nuclear proliferation. If Israel has no intention of producing unconventional weapons, the President wondered, why does it reject international inspections and refuse to let Washington reassure Nasser that Israel was not going nuclear?22 At a loss for convincing replies to these questions, Eshkol presented a survey of the Jewish people’s suffering throughout the ages. He must have hoped this would express his deep concern for his country’s security, and soften the president’s stand regarding Israel’s nuclear activity. He stressed that Israel could not afford to lose its struggle with the Arab world, that this might be its last chance in history to live as a sovereign nation. Israel believed in the sincerity of the US intention to maintain Israel’s security but he could not tell his people to put their trust solely on these assurances. The UAR missiles might not be accurate, but to hit a city of a million
46 The Dimona and Ben-Barka affairs inhabitants like Tel-Aviv precise missiles were not necessary. The average Israeli asked whether his safety would be guaranteed in the coming years. What would happen if one day President Nasser decided to attack Israel against the advice and warning of both the Russians and Americans? Such attacks would wreak untold havoc on Israel and, it was possible, that precisely at this time the United States would be deeply involved elsewhere and be unable to provide immediate assistance.23 To sum up, Eshkol stated that if the UAR were to cease developing its missile project, Israel would also give up its project. But at present, Egypt has two hundred missiles and was constantly upgrading them. Israel would not have any missiles for two more years. Regarding the Dimona Project, Eshkol declared that he could not allow the American administration to divulge to Nasser the true situation at the reactor. Nasser was an implacable enemy. For years he had actively built up Egypt’s nuclear capability. Eshkol pointed out that Israel was not involved in nuclear arms production. Therefore, any message that Nasser received that Israel was not currently manufacturing nuclear weapons would only be counterproductive in deterring Egypt from attacking Israel.24 On June 2, 1964, Eshkol met with Johnson for a second time. The private conversation was later joined by the following advisors: Robert W. Komer and Averill W. Harriman of the National Security Council, Deputy Defense Minister Shimon Peres, the Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Avraham Harman, the Director-General of the Foreign Ministry, Chaim Yahil, the diplomat Mordechai Gazit, the Director-General of the Prime Minister’s Office, Teddy Kollek, and the Prime Minister’s Military Advisor, Mordechai Nisiyahu. It seems that the Dimona issue was brought up for discussion, but only incidentally and without any threatening undertones.25 After the private Eshkol–Johnson meeting, Komer asked the president whether they had come to an arrangement regarding the administration wish to pass on information to the UAR on Israel’s nuclear activity. Johnson replied: “No, no agreement [was reached].” Johnson was then asked whether they had reached an arrangement for an international inspection at Dimona. His answer was again in the negative. Following the conversation, Komer told Ambassador Harman that the Israeli prime minister was a better salesman than President Johnson, for Israel had managed to get everything it asked for without giving up a thing. Komer also made clear that the president had been requested to raise the Dimona issue with Eshkol more forcefully, but to the undisguised chagrin of his advisors, he failed to do so.26 Johnson’s decision to keep a low the profile on these issues and avoid confrontation with Eshkol was also probably influenced by domestic considerations. To recall: Johnson had not been voted into office but had ascended to presidency following Kennedy’s assassination. Elections would be held in November 1964, only a few months after his meeting with
The Dimona and Ben-Barka affairs 47 Eshkol. He must have hoped that Eshkol’s support would help him gain the Jewish vote. While Eshkol was in Washington, Peres met with the president’s advisor, Harriman, who made specific reference to these considerations. According to Mordechai Gazit’s report, the following dialogue took place: Harriman:
Peres: Harriman:
I’m a politician and you’re a politician. Let’s talk like politicians . . . I want you to know that President Johnson is interested in having Mr. Eshkol remain in office. We believe that Mr. Eshkol is interested in remaining in office. We may assume that Mr. Johnson will remain in office for another eight years. We may assume that Mr. Eshkol will remain in office for another five years. You have nothing to worry about during this period. I’m not saying that you have anything to worry about from another president, but Mr. Johnson’s special attitude, like Kennedy’s, is plain and clear. We have several years ahead of us to work together.27
This promise notwithstanding, a few months after Eshkol’s visit to the United States the administration renewed its pressure for inspections. Israel was asked to provide solid proof that it did not intend to develop a nuclear capability. In practical terms, some circles in the administration wanted the visit to the reactor to stretch “over two Saturdays.” Eshkol replied that Israel’s consent to the visit was “highly irregular” considering that the reactor was built with French, not American, assistance. Furthermore, Washington was not demanding the same criteria from India, which also had an accelerated nuclear program. As for the length of the inspection, Eshkol proposed that it begin on Friday afternoon (the beginning of the Sabbath weekend) and continue through Saturday: “Diligent people,” he said, “can get a lot done in one day.” He also wanted to signal to the administration that his agreement to the arrangements for this visit to the reactor would have domestic consequences in Israel that the administration should take into account. Eshkol was implying that his submission to Washington might be exploited by Ben-Gurion and his followers to assail the prime minister and perhaps even destabilize his regime.28 In early 1965, Johnson’s special envoys, Averill Harriman and Robert Komer, arrived in Israel. The nuclear issue featured prominently in their meetings with Eshkol and other Israeli leaders. Already at the first meeting the prime minister insisted that the subject be dropped. However, the Americans refused and laid out Washington’s basic position: feeling was strong that Israel was bent on attaining nuclear capability. Israel had to convince the administration that this was not its intention. The president was personally involved in the issue. The United States would have to
48 The Dimona and Ben-Barka affairs receive assurances on this issue before deciding on arms sales to Israel. Israel’s continued development of a nuclear option would lead to a serious confrontation with the White House. The United States would employ all its resources to thwart Israel’s nuclear program. Eshkol retorted that Israel had solid information that Egypt was engaged in nuclear cooperation with India. He reaffirmed Israel’s special situation of being surrounded by enemies that repeatedly threatened to annihilate it. Therefore, Israel could not consider disarming itself. Finally, after intensive deliberations Israel and the United States reached an understanding with regard to Israel’s nuclear activity. This understanding included a general commitment that Israel “will not to be the first [state] to introduce nuclear weapons into the Arab–Israeli area.”29 Ben-Gurion and some of his supporters must have had misgivings over Eshkol’s understandings with the Americans. His criticism of Eshkol’s policy precipitated a debate among Israel’s leaders that took place in near-total secrecy. Both sides realized that a public debate could lead to the disclosure of the state’s most sensitive secrets. However, given the uniquely intimate conditions in which the Israeli political system operated, absolute secrecy, even on as sensitive an issue as nuclear power, was extremely difficult to maintain. The information that gradually leaked out shows that BenGurion and his circle accused Eshkol and his government of yielding ground to the Americans by accepting many of their demands for the inspection at Dimona – perhaps even to the extent of slowing down Israel’s nuclear development. On January 21, 1966, Ha’aretz published an article by Shimon Peres in which the deputy defense minister opined that Israel had to arm itself with an independent, nuclear-based deterrent option. The article was probably written against Eshkol and his policy. Peres knew about the nuclear option’s limitations, but he also noted the limitations of conventional weapons and the limits of a superpower like the United States in guaranteeing the security of other nations. Taking all the factors into consideration, Peres saw that Israel had to attain nuclear option. His article also noted that the war in Vietnam revealed three main American weaknesses: (a) Nuclear superiority cannot be applied in a limited war, especially if other nuclear powers are involved in the war. (b) A conventional army, no matter how large and powerful, can not achieve a military or political victory in an ideological war. (c) The length of the war and its heavy price fuel public pressure against those who run the war. Therefore, even when public opinion is convinced that the war is justifiable, it simultaneously harbors reservations when sacrifices become great.30 Peres also pointed out that the Indo-Pakistan war exposed an additional flaw in American political-security thinking. Pakistan and the United States were partners in a military alliance. Nevertheless, Pakistan gained almost no security benefits from the alliances if the enemy was not communist. In the end Pakistan and India had to consent to the Soviet Union’s mediation. The United States paid the price and the Soviet achieved a political victory.
The Dimona and Ben-Barka affairs 49 Peres also observed that Washington was very fearful of nuclear proliferation. Its working assumption that it was leading the global monitoring of nuclear weapons was incorrect – even if small nations yielded some of their sovereignty to the great powers. How could one oversee the international transfer of nuclear material weighing only a few kilograms?31 Peres also perceived that the Americans realized that concentrating on conventional weapons instead of nuclear ones did not satisfy countries – such as India and Pakistan – already involved in the arms race. These shortcomings were a painful blow to the US policy of preventing nuclear proliferation. The Vietnam War proved how difficult it was for a superpower to make guarantees and uphold them under conditions of a limited war in a distant land. America’s nuclear advantage in this situation is neutralized. This means that a treaty with the United States is of significance only if the enemy is a communist. These statements are of great importance in American–Israeli relations. The United States remains a powerful ally of Israel’s despite the disagreements between the two sides. However, Israel has to take into account that American security guarantees are of limited significance in the Middle East and cannot be relied on.32 Along with their criticism of Eshkol, Ben-Gurion and his supporters claimed that the prime minister, unlike his predecessor, agreed to tighter and more frequent inspections at Dimona by American officials. Eshkol was also charged with having secretly consented to slowing down the pace of nuclear development that Ben-Gurion had worked so hard to attain, and put off the realization of the nuclear option to a later date. Moreover, BenGurion’s circle accused Eshkol of refusing the finances needed for the development (apparently with French cooperation) of surface-to-surface missiles. Thus, Eshkol’s Rafi opponents accused him of deviating from the practical framework that Ben-Gurion had set up for this sensitive issue. Ben-Gurion expressed his views on Israel’s nuclear option in an interview published in Mabat Hadash. When asked if Israel should sign the nuclear proliferation treaty, he replied: I have not seen the proposed treaty. But, if it is a general criticism of nuclear science – then it must not be signed. No one can claim to be lord and master over us regarding the construction of atomic reactors for peaceful purposes. If it is only a question of supervising the manufacture of nuclear weapons, then there is no reason to oppose it on principle. But as long as there is no supervision of atomic reactors in Russia, the United States, and England – then such a treaty should not be signed.33 In the middle of March 1965, the American press published reports that US representatives had visited the Dimona reactor. The administration immediately denied being the source of the leak. However, the publicity embarrassed Eshkol’s government because it corroborated Ben-Gurion’s
50 The Dimona and Ben-Barka affairs grievous accusations of Eshkol’s “disastrous submission” on the nuclear program. Many questions were asked in the Knesset about the serious blow to Israel’s sovereignty caused by the United States. Official sources in Israel replied that the press had referred to visits by American scientists in 1961 – that is, when Ben-Gurion was the prime minister and defense minister. It was claimed that the visits had entailed neither inspection nor supervision of the site. Therefore no harm had been caused to Israel’s sovereignty.34 In August 1965, the White House repeated its demand for international inspections at the Dimona reactor. An Israeli diplomat, Mordechai Gazit, met with the president’s advisor, Robert Komer who bluntly repeated the administration’s request for international inspection at Dimona. Komer informed the Israeli diplomat that, “the Americans knew much more about what was going on in Dimona than Harman and Gazit did.” He also mentioned that Eshkol’s last letter to the president on this matter had been “evasive” and that “the Dimona issue could lead to a most serious confrontation between the United States and Israel, just as France’s nuclear program had caused a serious altercation between the United States and France.” Komer warned that, “The United States would not wait until the last minute” (i.e. until Israel was on the brink of producing nuclear weapons). It might act unilaterally before that. The development of nuclear capability, he went on, is a step-by-step process: “When you finish one stage, you are already committed to the next stage.” Therefore the United States would have to act at a relatively early stage. Komer further pointed out that if Nasser’s suspicions regarding Israel’s nuclear plans increased he would enter any form of relationship with the Communist bloc in order to obtain a commensurate nuclear capability.35 The Israeli diplomat, Evron, who was also present at the meeting, explained that the prime minister was facing general elections in Israel and could not assume a different position from the one he had already presented to the president. The question of domestic political considerations within the framework of American–Israeli talks on the inspection issue put the Johnson Administration in a difficult position. On the one hand, the absence of monitoring for a lengthy period would enable Israel to progress in its nuclear development, creating facts on the ground that Washington would have to accept. On the other hand, the harsh criticism of Eshkol by Ben-Gurion and his entourage meant that increased American pressure on Eshkol and his government could be exploited by the prime minister’s political rivals to attack him and thus ruin his chances for reelection in November 1965.36 It was finally decided that the US Ambassador to Israel, Walworth Barbour, should decide whether to continue pressuring Eshkol to allow American representatives into the Dimona reactor before the elections. A memorandum addressed to Barbour revealed that the administration found it difficult to accept the prime minister’s claim of political constraints as the reason for his postponement of inspections. The memorandum stressed
The Dimona and Ben-Barka affairs 51 that if the ambassador decided to refrain from pressuring Eshkol he would have to make it clear to him that the president was disappointed with the prime minister’s stand. He would also have to inform Eshkol that immediately after the elections he (Eshkol) would be required to abide by his commitment: American interests on this issue go beyond domestic-Israeli political considerations. The Administration will impose the same set of considerations on any government in power in Israel. [Our] restraint in pressing for visits by administration representatives prior to the elections stems from practical considerations and not from the assessment of a significant difference between Ben-Gurion and Eshkol on the question of nuclear proliferation. Eshkol should not assume that the administration regards the rivalry in Mapai as a struggle between good and evil.37 During a meeting between the prime minister and Barbour in August 1965, Eshkol was informed of the president’s disappointment with his position on the issue. The matter was of such importance that the coming elections in Israel could not be taken into account. Nevertheless, Barbour said, the White House was not demanding an explicit Israeli commitment to accept the American terms for inspections at the nuclear site, but only that Israel give its promise that “the subject would receive immediate and most serious attention after the elections.” Eshkol replied that he could only reiterate that Israel would not be the first state to introduce nuclear arms into the region. Considering Israel’s unique security dilemma, he added, the administration was unjustified in demanding that Israel be the first country to agree to international inspections at its nuclear installations. In fact, the White House should have turned to Israel last. The ambassador expressed understanding of Israel’s special circumstances, pointing out that the request had been made because of the “close and friendly ties” between the two countries: “If you do not [accept international monitoring], neither will the others,” he confided.38 Later in the conversation, Barbour asked whether there was a deterrent factor other than the nuclear option capable of satisfying Israel’s needs. Eshkol stated that a peace agreement with Egypt would solve Israel’s security problem and suggested that Washington try to convince Nasser to take peace-inducing steps. Aware of the slim prospects of such a development, Barbour wondered how the United States could guarantee Israel’s security until that time. With no adequate answer forthcoming, he proposed that Israel reconsider the inspection issue until the elections. Eshkol answered, “We’ll think it over.” When Barbour expressed his profound disappointment that the issue had not been resolved to the administration’s satisfaction, Eshkol expressed his deep regret at being unable to satisfy the president’s demands.39 Nine months later administration representatives again asked Eshkol to set the dates for their visit to the reactor. Eshkol took advantage of
52 The Dimona and Ben-Barka affairs American press reports of the visit to charge that Washington could not be trusted to keep the matter secret. The ensuing discussions over a commitment to secrecy caused further delays that served Israel’s purposes. Eshkol also brought up other topics for discussion that were bound to cause further delays. Would the visits be on a semiannual basis? How long would the inspection tour last? Eshkol rejected the request that each visit last two days. Barbour proposed that the visitors stay in Beer-Sheva on Friday night so they could get to the reactor early on Saturday morning and remain there as long as possible. Eshkol rejected the idea because of its adverse domestic political ramifications.40 Eshkol’s maneuvering position vis-à-vis the United States improved measurably in early April 1966 when Prof. Ernest David Bergmann, chairman of Israel’s Atomic Energy Commission and a Ben-Gurion confidant, resigned. In a newspaper interview, he intimated that the reason for his resignation was due mainly to disputes over “defense research.” Bergmann emphasized the need to develop effective responses to threats against Israel over the next 10–15 years. The disputes that Bergmann obliquely mentioned undoubtedly referred to Israel’s nuclear policy. He revealed that when he tendered his resignation in June 1964, the prime minister had requested that he withdraw it. Now, however, Eshkol seemed quite satisfied with his resignation. This would seem to substantiate Eshkol’s claim that he felt seriously threatened by Ben-Gurion.41 A few months before the outbreak of the Six-Day War, Barbour again discussed Israel’s nuclear development with a senior Foreign Ministry official. The administration had received information that Israel was considering opening the reactor to Israeli and foreign scientists in order to encourage civilian-industrial research. The ambassador expressed satisfaction with this turnabout, and added that the White House was eager to obtain a clear picture of activity in the reactor. Every time the subject was brought up, he said, the secretary of state started “climbing the walls.” He again asked for the date of the next visit. The Israeli diplomat in turn asked Barbour to stop pressuring Israel, especially since the prime minister had to “take domestic political affairs into consideration” before deciding on so sensitive an issue. He also rejected Barbour’s claim that Eshkol had promised semiannual visits to the reactor and reiterated that Israel’s domestic political front greatly troubled the prime minister: “We don’t want a scandal in a Knesset committee or the press, and I presume that the U.S. Government is not interested in one either.”42 In conclusion, based on available source material, it is hard to determine whether Ben-Gurion’s charges of “security incompetence” regarding the nuclear option were justified or not. It seems that Eshkol tended to employ tactical flexibility on the issue. He may have agreed to certain American demands that Ben-Gurion had rejected. His entire position and policy must be looked at in the light of the range of internal and external constraints he was under. Eshkol appears to have stubbornly clung to the main
The Dimona and Ben-Barka affairs 53 objective: the continued development of the nuclear option. His path was labyrinthine, evasive, and fitful, but taking into consideration all of the external and internal pressures he had to face, we come to the conclusion that he wielded his maneuvering position to the maximum.
The Ben-Barka Affair The Ben-Barka Affair was a “security blunder” that, according to Ben-Gurion, Eshkol was fully responsible for. This concerned the alleged assistance by the Mossad (Israel’s intelligence agency), under the directorship of Meir Amit, to the Moroccan secret service in assassinating Mehdi Ben-Barka, a Moroccan opposition leader and revolutionary, on French soil. The affair gained wide coverage in Israel especially because it exposed the deep animosity between the Mossad’s first director, Issar Harel, and his supporters, and his replacement, Brigadier General Meir Amit and his entourage.43 Ben-Gurion soon realized that he could benefit from the affair by showing Eshkol’s incompetence in handling the state’s secret services. Ben-Gurion claimed that Eshkol had used poor judgment, if not reprehensible behavior, in enlisting the Mossad in such a plot. Publicity of the affair would cause a serious breach in relations between Israel and France (Israel’s chief arms supplier). In Ben-Gurion’s view, despite American friendship for Israel, the United States could not serve as a substitute for France. Several years after the event, Ben-Gurion termed the decision to participate in the assassination a “despicable crime.” In a letter to Golda Meir, he noted: One issue that you knew about and I had no idea of was the contemptible murder of Ben-Barka. This was perpetrated with the assistance of representatives from Israel under the full responsibility of Levi Eshkol who was prime minister and defense minister at the time. Four Mapai members in good standing came to me about this shameful deed and demanded Eshkol’s ouster. For quite some time I had no inkling of the scandal even after Bool [a popular tabloid specializing in scathing political exposés and ‘soft-porn’], the disgusting newspaper that I’d never heard of before, published the incident. Of course, the censors immediately confiscated the paper (this time with justification) and indicted its editors. For some reason though, Eshkol felt it necessary to send Ya’acov Herzog, the director-general of the Prime Minister’s Office, to see me. [Herzog] read me Eshkol’s secret speech to the newspaper editors following Bool’s disclosure of the incident. While I listened to the speech, I wasn’t sure that everything Eshkol told them was the truth. I told Ya’acov Herzog that Eshkol must be removed.44 Until the present day it is still unknown who leaked the information of the Mossad’s involvement in the Ben-Barka assassination. Evidence seemed to point to Harel who had been in charge of the Mossad from 1948 to
54 The Dimona and Ben-Barka affairs April 1963. Upon his dismissal, after a dispute with Ben-Gurion over the German Scientists Affair in Egypt, he became an intractable opponent of his successor, Meir Amit. In September 1965, about a month before national elections to the Sixth Knesset, Harel was appointed Eshkol’s “Chief Advisor” – an office that had no precise areas of responsibility or authority. All of his attempts to define his turf failed and he resigned in June 1966. Soon after this he harshly criticized the prime minister and his work style. He claimed that he found no common ground with the prime minister, and felt a moral obligation to resign. It was believed that publicity over the affair served Harel’s interest in undermining Amit’s public image and led to his dismissal. It was also intended to stain his superior – Prime Minister Eshkol. Even while he criticized Eshkol’s role in the Ben-Barka Affair, Ben-Gurion remained silent on what he considered the most important area of French– Israel relations – the development of the nuclear option and the acquisition of surface-to-surface missiles. He may have hoped that emphasizing France’s special role, vis-à-vis the United States, in Israel’s security needs was sufficient to clarify this issue. Ben-Gurion summarized his position by stating that Eshkol had not only seriously bungled the Ben-Barka Affair, but had also lied and failed to apologize to the French: My main area of focus [on the affair] was its effect [on Israel’s security]. I didn’t deal with every [detail of the event] . . . We will have need of France for a long time. [Although] we receive huge assistance from America, which should not be disparaged, we will not receive real political assistance or arms from [the Americans] . . . For the time being there is only France . . . Therefore, if we impair [our relations with] France we detract from [the vital interests of the state], and I said that Eshkol had to resign [over] this issue. I think that Eshkol is a major security risk to the state . . . Eshkol cannot be the defense minister. He’s a danger to the country, and the Knesset and nation must be informed about this, and he must go. In my opinion, things [this] must be clearly stated . . . I prefer to do this in a closed meeting . . . I believe [the French] know about the Ben-Barka Affair . . . Eshkol is unfit to be prime minister because he is a liar, even though I know that it is not usual [to say this outright]. The matter is serious. How many mistakes can a small state [afford to] make? France undoubtedly knows about the Ben-Barka Affair. So why doesn’t the prime minister admit that a mistake was made. They [the French] would understand such an acknowledgement. . .45 A few months later, Ben-Gurion again insinuated that the Ben-Barka Affair was one of the reasons for the deterioration of French–Israeli relations, and had caused a serious breach between the two states after the Six-Day War: “I cannot say why relations between France and Israel turned sour,” he stated, but one possible reason that I know of is something that I cannot discuss [publicly] or write about. This is why four key members of Mapai demanded that the party’s secretariat remove Eshkol from
The Dimona and Ben-Barka affairs 55 government. Of course, the secretariat refused. If one of the four [Mapai MKs] wants to discuss this issue [publicly] it’s his privilege. [I would not do this] I’ll tell you who they are: Santa Yoseftal, Mordechai Nisiyahu, David Golomb and [Eliezer] Shoshani [each one a distinguished member of Mapai].46 As Ben-Gurion realized that squabbling with Eshkol would not lead to the latter’s removal, he amplified the tone of his rhetoric. In a letter to David Golomb, who had investigated the case for Mapai, the Old Man again employed scathing words to describe the affair and demanded that Golomb do everything necessary to oust Eshkol from the dual role of prime minister–defense minister. I haven’t spoken [publicly] on the affair over which you once asked to remove Eshkol from office . . . I don’t believe that Eshkol should be allowed to continue in office in light of the state’s needs and honor . . . I’m aware that the committee that Eshkol himself, if I’m not mistaken, appointed found the prime minister responsible for everything [related to the Ben-Barka Affair] and not the person [Meir Amit, the head of the Mossad] on whom Eshkol tried to pin responsibility in his secret speech to the newspaper editors. This is moral injustice as well as a criminal act that has severely tarnished Israel in the international arena . . . I am merely an ordinary citizen [like others] . . . who learned of the crime [and] I believe that no citizen can allow himself just to sit back until the culprit responsible for [this outrage] appears before a commission of inquiry and is booted out of government.47 In retrospect, we cannot help questioning Ben-Gurion’s motives for his excoriating attacks on Eshkol in the Ben-Barka Affair. In fact, we may seriously doubt the Old Man’s claims that they were completely devoid of personal and political intentions. We may also assume that Ben-Gurion had experience in using Israel’s secret services for foreign intrigues such as the Ben-Barka case. Therefore his biting invective against extending help to Morocco’s secret services as moral negligence (as well as an operational blunder) seems rather perplexing. Ben-Gurion feared that Israel’s relations with France would be damaged in the wake of the Ben-Barka Affair. France certainly protested Israel’s involvement in the assassination. However, at the same time, contrary to Ben-Gurion’s assessment, it manifestly avoided a full-blown crisis over the affair. Therefore it is hard to accept that Ben-Gurion really believed that the strained relations between the two countries after the Six-Day War were a direct result of the Ben-Barka Affair. Generally speaking, Ben-Gurion’s perception of the French–Israeli crisis appears highly exaggerated, and in reality the crisis never materialized. Indeed, it appears that while BenGurion was still in office a basic change had developed in French–Israeli relations due to President De Gaulle’s desire to terminate France’s rule over
56 The Dimona and Ben-Barka affairs Algeria. At the same time, De Gaulle also wanted to rehabilitate his country’s relations with the Arab world that had plummeted because of France’s involvement in the Sinai Campaign. When Eshkol ascended to office, this process intensified even more. During Eshkol’s premiership, Israel sought to improve its relationship (including defense ties) with the United States. This tendency naturally loosened Israel’s excessive dependency on France. During a Mapai meeting, Eshkol indirectly challenged Ben-Gurion’s concept of Israel’s reliance on France. He pointed out that since becoming defense minister arms procurement had been concentrated in the United States rather than France: I’d like to particularly mention the ties we developed with the United States three–four years ago when Golda Meir was foreign minister . . . We were all satisfied, and still are, with our relations with France. I’m ready to put my trust in Germany too. For some reason we boycotted America. Although it was not an official or total ban . . . one sensed that we had to keep out distance from the [Americans] lest they present us with certain stipulations.48 It was Ben-Gurion who developed intimate ties with peripheral states, such as Morocco, and was fully aware of their strategic importance for Israel. He was certainly aware of Israel’s need to pacify Morocco in order to “convince” it to maintain its strategic ties with the Zionist state. His disdain of Israel’s benefits from its close and extended relations with Morocco increases suspicions as to the real motives behind his denunciation of Eshkol over this affair. Interestingly, one of Ben-Gurion’s closest associates, Moshe Dayan, disagreed with the Old Man on the Ben-Barka issue. He criticized Ben-Gurion’s stand in a circuitous way when he claimed: I opposed [the proposal] that we should publicly announce Israel’s involvement in this [matter]. Even if we had a majority in the Knesset I wouldn’t have brought the issue up [for a public debate]. They [the French] aren’t making an issue of it, and neither should we.49
4
The split with Mapai The founding of Rafi
The politicization of the defense establishment Another issue that deeply disturbed Ben-Gurion was Eshkol’s efforts to harness the defense organizations to his own political ends. In early August 1965, two senior Defense Ministry officials, Al Schwimmer and Asher BenYosef, told Ben-Gurion that they had been summoned to Shaul Avigur’s (a senior defense ministry official and supporter of Eshkol in his feud with Ben-Gurion) home and that other ministry officials had received similar invitations. Eshkol and his colleagues had called the meeting because of their concern that the Defense Ministry staff was leaning toward Ben-Gurion and Rafi. The aim of the meeting was to prevent the officials from completely identifying with Ben-Gurion and his party.1 Yerucham Meshel, a Histadrut leader and Eshkol supporter, opened the meeting with a blatant attempt to urge the participants to support Eshkol in his struggle against Ben-Gurion: “We’re in the midst of a campaign to retain the central power of the country,” he said. Meshel had no qualms about attempting to enlist almost ten thousand defense workers to outright political activity. He claimed that “[we] must overcome everything and launch rallies and money collection drives.” He acknowledged that in the past he too had supported Ben-Gurion and Peres, but circumstances had changed and Ben-Gurion had taken a different path. The majority in Mapai rejected Ben-Gurion’s way, so it appeared morally justifiable not to support him. Then Eshkol stepped up to the podium and asked why some of the top people in the defense establishment refused to join him. BenYosef said that he wanted his organization to remain neutral. He would back neither side nor would he allow any form of political activity inside the organization.2 Eshkol probably felt uneasy about combining security matters with openly political ones. Therefore, he made sure to mention to the gathering that he was speaking as a rank and file member of the Histadrut. It is doubtful whether he thought that anyone believed this pretense. He tried to justify the departure of Shimon Peres from the post of deputy defense minister by alluding to certain mistakes that Peres had made but that he
58 Split with Mapai: founding of Rafi (Eshkol) had kept from the public: They [Ben-Gurion and his entourage] claim that I want to sell out [the] Dimona [reactor by allowing tight American control over it]. Do I? Those who developed Dimona said it was for the [good of the] economy, yet its cost has skyrocketed.3 Eshkol ended his speech by predicting that Rafi would suffer miserably in the coming elections.4 When Rafi activists met several months later, Ben-Gurion again took up the cudgels against Eshkol for his efforts to recruit members of the defense establishment to his political struggles: The first time that an attempt was made to use security [issues] for party interests it was done by the current defense minister [Levi Eshkol] who is a wily fellow – I should have used another word [much more severe] but better I should [only] say “wily” – and he invited, lured someone into bringing in a Hagana figure with a good reputation, Shaul Avigur. And Avigur invited [people] to his home. I’m referring to security establishment [people], and a Histadrut representative [Yerucham Meshel] came and explained why they must support [Mapai] in the elections. Two [defense] establishment officials protested but the rest applauded [and shouted] “Bravo.”5 Then Ben-Gurion continued, the defense minister got up to speak. He was well aware of the odd situation before him, and took advantage of his national position in an effort to improve his political standing. He told the audience that he was talking to them not as the defense minister but as the secretary of the Tel-Aviv Workers Council – a relatively low-ranking position: “The unity and victory of the party,” he told his listeners, “are more important than the prevention of disputes within the defense establishment.” Such (a phenomenon), Ben-Gurion concluded, had never occurred until this defense minister entered office. If this violation [of basic principles in civil–military relations] continues, the army will be totally compromised. To the point that when they receive an order not to their liking, they won’t know if it’s an official order or a partisan command.6 At another Rafi meeting, Ben-Gurion repeated his tirade against what he perceived as the exploitation of the state’s security networks for partisan needs: “All the parties champion security . . . but in these elections some unethical things have been done for the first time since the establishment of the IDF.” He bitterly and cynically stated that, In the past we lacked a defense minister as skilled [as Eshkol thinks he is]. The first defense minister [i.e. Ben-Gurion] understood that the army had to stay outside of party politics. The vast majority of our
Split with Mapai: founding of Rafi 59 people support this position. For this reason [their faith in army’s commanders is very strong] and they agree to send their sons [to the army] where many could be killed. And [if they are] killed it is not because [they fought for] political parties but because they sacrificed their lives for the state. Therefore, it is forbidden to involve politics in [the military]. These norms have been in force for the last fifteen years with a defense minister [i.e. Ben-Gurion] who understood . . . that the army belongs to the entire nation, not to any political party.7 In a letter to Golda concerning Eshkol’s use of the army for political ends, Ben-Gurion expressed his disappointment that a man like Shaul Avigur, who was so conscious of state security, had been involved in Eshkol’s political chicanery: “For the first time in the state’s history,” he stated, an infraction was committed by the man who had the prime responsibility to avoid such shenanigans. Eshkol did this in the election [campaign] for the Sixth Knesset. Who aided him? The last man I would have believed capable of taking part in such a caprice. Shaul Avigur helped Eshkol by inviting all the security heads to his home. Before the elections I refrained from publicizing the matter. But on the evening before the elections, on November 1, 1965, I wrote a letter to Shaul expressing my view that there has never been a filthier election campaign than this one in the country. I also emphasized that whatever the results, Israel is in grave moral [and political] danger . . . 8 A few months after the campaign Ben-Gurion wrote a much more apologetic letter to Avigur. The latter justified his deeds by claiming that the IDF was an organization basically similar to the Hagana, which had responsibility for the security of the Yishuv, and was to a large extent involved in party politics. Ben-Gurion accepted this explanation only in part: What you told me about the IDF being a continuation of the Hagana has somewhat softened my surprise and chagrin at the step you took in inviting to your place the heads of the defense organizations as Levi Eshkol requested. [Although] such things occurred in the Hagana, I still hope that you will not repeat this act. I find it hard to believe that you do not see the danger in such a deed.9
Status of Jerusalem Eshkol’s position on securing Jerusalem’s status in the international arena was another issue that triggered Ben-Gurion’s anger in the pre-Six-Day War period. He discussed this issue, unlike the Ben-Barka Affair, in open forums,
60 Split with Mapai: founding of Rafi lambasting Eshkol for refusing to hold a military parade in Jerusalem on Independence Day. He regarded this as submission to the dictates of international bodies that negated Israel’s sovereignty over Jerusalem. Such deference, he warned, would jeopardize Israel’s status in Jerusalem and encourage hostile international elements to exert heavy pressure on Israel in other areas of vital importance.10 He repeatedly warned that if Israel failed to demonstrate a resolute stand on Jerusalem, it would be too weak to stave off pressure in other areas. He also claimed that Israel had a right to hold a military parade in Jerusalem on Independence Day even if it did not comply with the Israeli–Jordanian Armistice Agreement. Jordan had consistently violated this agreement by refusing Israelis free access to holy sites and Mount Scopus, for example. Jordan’s violation justified Israel’s choice of its own “retaliatory” measures in the spirit of an “eye for an eye.”11 The government decided in 1965 that the Independence Day military parade would be held in Tel-Aviv. Ben-Gurion responded by sending a personal letter to each minister in which he expressed his mortification that the government was yielding to external pressures on so crucial an issue. He also expressed surprise that Israel had accepted Washington’s decision to keep the US Embassy in Tel-Aviv. The parade was held in Jerusalem on the eve of the Six-Day War. But it did little to placate the Old Man who complained that the government had decided on a watered-down version of a military parade, that is, without heavy weapons. Therefore he shunned this parade too. In 1966, Ben-Gurion announced that he would not attend the Independence Day parade in Haifa or even a national ceremony in Jerusalem on the evening of the holiday. He pushed through a resolution in Rafi that all meetings of the party’s secretariat and political committee would be conducted in Jerusalem. It is interesting to note that the mayor of Jerusalem, Teddy Kollek, resigned from the Rafi secretariat when this resolution was not observed.12
Mapai’s Tenth Convention Mapai’s Tenth Convention was held in Tel-Aviv on February 16, 1965. The main issue was the establishment of an alignment between Mapai and Achdut Ha’avoda. In practical terms the convention had to decide whether to continue supporting Ben-Gurion’s approach (opposition to the alignment) or Eshkol’s (support of it). Following a raucous debate, the convention finally agreed on the formation of the “Little Alignment” – a merging of Mapai and Achdut Ha’avoda. This had been the proposal of Eshkol and his supporters who received 60 percent of the votes against 40 percent for BenGurion and his followers. In addition, the convention rejected Ben-Gurion’s demand that the government, under the Alignment’s leadership would rescind the previous government’s affirmation of the Committee of Seven’s recommendations and abstention from setting up a judicial inquiry.13
Split with Mapai: founding of Rafi 61 The resolutions ratified by the convention had far reaching implications on the struggle between Ben-Gurion and Eshkol. This was the first time that Eshkol had dared to defy Ben-Gurion openly and he did so before the largest party forum. The resolutions that the convention passed clearly indicated that Ben-Gurion and his followers no longer enjoyed the majority’s support. The resolutions also provided Eshkol’s leadership with the legitimacy that rested upon his own strength, free of Ben-Gurion’s patronage. These decisions also had political consequences. In the light of Ben-Gurion’s repeated warning to the convention not to pass resolutions opposed to his positions, it was obvious that a large number of party members were prepared to take the risk in expediting Ben-Gurion and his supporters’ decision to storm out of Mapai in protest. Eshkol delivered an emotional speech at the convention. He emphasized that he had not sought the premiership. It was, so to speak, imposed upon him by the party. Even Ben-Gurion had recommended him as his replacement. Then he appealed directly to Ben-Gurion with a plea to give him a chance to lead the state as he saw fit: “Give me some credit,” he implored, “at least for one term.” Sharett, whose illness was clearly visible, and Golda both delivered fiery speeches. Ben-Gurion did not address the assembly.14 Eshkol’s speech was greeted with loud applause. Even those who considered him below Ben-Gurion’s stature identified with his quandary because of Ben-Gurion’s merciless vituperation. Despite the supportive atmosphere toward Eshkol, Ben-Gurion remained adamant in his positions. He left no room for compromise. The convention was thus compelled to come to a decision. Eventually, it tended to favor Eshkol’s positions. In the wake of the convention’s resolutions, the Old Man realized that the Eshkol-led party wanted him and his entourage as far away as possible from the center of influence. On June 29, 1965, he announced the establishment of a separate faction – Rafi.15 In August 1965, Mapai’s High Court met to decide whether the Rafi separatists were still welcome in the party. In the course of the trial harsh words were flung at Ben-Gurion by people who had supported him for years. It was obvious that old tensions and vendettas were being aired. The verdict to expel the Old Man and his Rafi cohorts did not come as a surprise, but an irreparable breach was created between Ben-Gurion and the party’s leadership. In the middle of May 1965, Ben-Gurion expressed his chagrin at the party changes after his departure, depicting reality in black and white, idealizing the past, and lamenting the present: There are the party and the state; and the state is the main thing. But a democratic state cannot exist without a party [parties]. Mapai, as it was, no longer exists, there’s only its name. My party was founded on common principles, freedom of opinion, and comradely debates based on mutual trust. All this has been destroyed . . . The last convention was a disappointment. During the debate over my demand to examine
62 Split with Mapai: founding of Rafi whether the Committee of Seven had defiled truth and justice, Eshkol claimed I was opening a Pandora’s box. But if he’s worried about opening a Pandora’s box then he’s not fit to stand at the helm of the state.16 Characteristically, Ben-Gurion emphasized that he left Mapai because of its moral decrepitude and the leadership’s aversion to act according to the principles of justice. In his exhaustive recapitulations he tended to ignore the political aspects that had led to his break with Mapai. Almost no mention is made of the Mapai leadership’s internal struggle in the years before Rafi’s split. The only issue of substance that Ben-Gurion perceived was the ideological and moral aspect of the breach. A few months after the Six-Day War, he was asked why he left Mapai. On this occasion too he spoke only in ethical and ideological terms. He probably preferred this line of explanation because it presented his squabble with Eshkol as emanating from objective considerations rather than personal ones. Whether he really believed his own rationalization remains a mystery. In his words: I left Mapai, [the party] I had been a member of from the day it was founded in 1930 until mid-1965 because I came to the conclusion that its leadership was traversing truth, justice and democratic principles . . . For a long time I believed that this miscarriage of justice had occurred innocuously . . . I had confidence in the members of the Committee of Seven for I believed that what they did was due to erroneous judgment, and anybody can err. On December 13, 1964, when Mapai’s Central Committee met to discuss the members’ demand to select an inquiry panel, I was astounded to hear Eshkol’s admission that he had acted with intentional deceit . . . and that the party elite knew of this and accepted the Israeli prime minister’s denial of truth and justice.17 Many of Ben-Gurion’s loyalists had no other choice, in light of the Old Man’s obstinacy, but to leave Mapai. The majority who left kept silent over Ben-Gurion’s uncompromising move. They did not consider a reinvestigation of the “Affair” as a matter of principle worth descending into the political desert for, even if the reopening of the case was totally justified from judicial and administrative points of view. Some of the Old Man’s supporters correctly estimated that the majority of the public would fail to appreciate Ben-Gurion’s abstract and abstruse claims, and even those who did would probably get the wrong idea of the political wisdom involved in his struggle for them. Many members of Rafi tended to feel that it was preferable to contend with Eshkol and his supporters from within Mapai than from outside the party. However, Ben-Gurion’s authoritarian and unbending personality and his extreme antipathy toward Eshkol left no room for compromise. Those who had traveled the political road with him for years now had to make a
Split with Mapai: founding of Rafi 63 tough decision: either take the pragmatic path and remain in Mapai, thus abandoning their moral support for the Old Man, or follow him into the political wilderness, thus jeopardizing their own careers. Most of BenGurion’s so-called “men” chose, at this stage, the second path. The most senior political figure on Ben-Gurion’s team, Shimon Peres, who was serving as deputy defense minister at the time, announced his resignation in May 1965. Shortly afterwards he was elected secretary of the newly established party – Rafi.18 Formally, Peres explained that he joined Ben-Gurion’s party because he identified with its campaign to enforce law and order in public life. A few months after the Six-Day War Peres recalled that, When we left Mapai many people asked us whether it was because of our moral commitment to Ben-Gurion? I would answer, and I believe quite honestly, that I did not leave because of Ben-Gurion but because of those who had thoughtlessly caused his departure from his mother party. This is the truth. It was not [Ben-Gurion] who caused the split but Mapai’s attitude toward his demand [for a judicial inquiry into the Lavon Affair]. There was nothing personal, material, authoritative, or political [in our split from the party] but only a question of justice . . . Therefore I categorically reject all the other interpretations. There is no moral breach whatsoever between us and Ben-Gurion.19 However, a different picture emerges from other sources. Peres, it seems, did not wholeheartedly agree to the separation from Mapai that he and others were subject to by Ben-Gurion. He had no illusions that public opinion was less than supportive of the Old Man whose obsessive struggle to probe the Lavon Affair was seen as a sordid attempt to destabilize Eshkol’s government. According to one source, Peres showed Ben-Gurion a survey that a Ben-Gurion-led party would not win more than ten seats in the Knesset. Peres tried to persuade him of the folly in bolting from Mapai. He claimed that Ben-Gurion’s group would accrue more political power by partnership with Mapai, but the Old Man was deaf to these arguments.20 When Peres finally decided to commit himself to Ben-Gurion’s new party he must have done so with mixed feelings. Matti Golan, his biographer, noted that, Peres faced a terrible dilemma – perhaps the most difficult one in his life. He did not believe in either the importance of the party’s platform or its prospects to gain the public’s confidence. He was deeply insulted by Ben-Gurion’s method of acting presumptuously and presenting a fait accomplish that his supporters could not refuse. Furthermore, [unlike Ben-Gurion] Peres held no personal grudge toward Eshkol and certainly did not share Ben-Gurion’s hatred of him. Yet, Ben-Gurion was his leader and commander, so how could he abandon him at this time?21
64 Split with Mapai: founding of Rafi Moshe Dayan too had serious doubts about the wisdom of leaving Mapai over such a “flimsy” reason as the reinvestigation of the Lavon Affair. Moreover, like others close to the Old Man, Dayan was offended that BenGurion had not informed him of his intention to resign in June 1963. Also, Dayan was very annoyed that Ben-Gurion had not appointed him a senior minister before leaving office. Therefore, Dayan felt no moral obligation to follow the Old Man into the political desert. When Rafi first came into being, he stood uncommitted. According to Yitzhak Navon, “In the days prior to the founding of Rafi in 1965, Ben-Gurion called Dov Yosef and Moshe Dayan to a meeting: ‘Tell me, are you joining my party or not?’ he asked them. Dayan got up and said, ‘Ben-Gurion, you went to Sede-Boker and appointed Eshkol [to replace you in 1963]. Tell me why?’ Ben-Gurion stared at him, when suddenly Dayan beat his breast and screamed in a shrill voice, ‘Let me tell you something Ben-Gurion, from this old goat, you’ll squeeze no more milk.’ Ben-Gurion stood silent for a moment. He was stunned.”22 However, Dayan was left with no choice but to join Rafi. He probably figured that Eshkol’s supporters would identify him with Ben-Gurion whether or not he formally joined the Old Man’s party. As election time approached, Ben-Gurion began working the crowds with renewed energy. He strove to regain the voters’ confidence in his positions. But the election results were very disappointing for him and his followers. Rafi won only ten seats – a dismal failure. The Alignment (Ma’arach), headed by Eshkol, came out with forty-five seats. It was obvious that the voters supported Eshkol’s case rather than Ben-Gurion’s. Rafi, whose members were considered political activists and go-getters, was relegated to the opposition and removed from the dynamics of daily affairs that had been their glory. Following the elections, the gulf between Ben-Gurion and Eshkol widened. Ben-Gurion’s tirades against Eshkol and his regime sounded more like a personal vendetta. The Old Man found every opportunity to sully Eshkol’s credibility and his management of political, defense, and economic issues. On the other hand, following the election results, some of Ben-Gurion’s supporters, including Peres and Dayan, reached the obvious conclusion that a small isolated party like Rafi would put an end to their political aspirations. Paradoxically, while they criticized Eshkol and his government they sought an honorable way to return to Mapai and its leadership without being accused of betraying Ben-Gurion.
5
The road to the Six-Day War
The nature of the Syrian threat In the years preceding the Six-Day War, Syria adopted an extremely hostile policy toward Israel. In December 1963, the Arab Chiefs of Staff Conference convened in Cairo to discuss the Arabs’ response to Israel’s opening of the National Water Carrier (or NWC, a pipeline for carrying water from the Sea of Galilee to the Negev). During the conference the Syrian delegates demanded a resolution calling for total war against Israel. However, President Nasser opposed this position, claiming that the Arab states were not prepared yet for such a commitment. As an alternative, he proposed an Arab plan for diverting the sources of the Jordan River into Arab areas in order to prevent the water from reaching Israel. In January 1964, the Arab Summit meeting in Cairo ratified Nasser’s water diversion proposal. At the end of the year the Syrians began a series of operations designed to subvert Israel’s sovereignty in the area where the source of the Dan River was located. On November 13, 1964, a major incident erupted during which the Syrians shelled the Israeli civilian settlements of Kibbutz Dan and Sha’ar Yishuv. The Israeli air force was called in to silence the artillery barrage and signal to the Syrians in the clearest of terms that Israel was capable of neutralizing their topographical advantage. In March, May, and August of 1965, IDF tanks and artillery severely damaged Syrian mechanical equipment at the diversion sites. In January 1966, the Palestinian “Fatah Organization” unleashed a violent terrorist campaign against Israel. Terrorists planted an explosive charge in the NWC’s canal near the Israeli Arab village of Ilabun in Galilee. Syria took the Fatah Organization under its wing, adopted the strategy of “a people’s war of liberation” against Israel, and continued its diversion of Jordan’s sources. In February 1966, Syria was rocked by revolution when the extremist branch of the Ba’ath movement seized the government. The new regime was eager to strengthen Syria’s ties with the Soviet Union and exacerbate hostilities against Israel as part of the strategy of “popular guerrilla warfare.” In April, Syrian-backed acts of sabotage emanating from Jordan increased.
66 The road to the Six-Day War The IDF retaliated with a number of raids against Jordan – south of Hebron and near the Sheikh Hussein Bridge opposite the Beit Shan Valley. In July, Israeli planes struck at mechanical equipment inside Syrian territory. In August a large-scale incident broke out after an Israeli coast guard vessel ran aground on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee. Israel assessed that the Syrians had a single game plan: the relentless disruption of the existing order. According to the Syrian Ba’ath’s view, only the total eradication of the status quo would allow a new and better world order emerge. Consequently, Israel estimated that the Syrian regime would pursue an inflexible belligerent policy. Such militancy, it was claimed, did not stem from the bitter conflicts between the two countries – water disputes and demilitarized zones – but from the essential nature of the Syrian regime and its ideology.1 On November 1, 1966, a high-level Syrian delegation, headed by Prime Minister Ibrahim Makhus and Chief of Staff Suawaydani, visited Egypt. A few days later both countries signed a defense pact that included the following items: 1 2
3 4
5 6
An armed attack against one party would be considered as aggression against both parties. A joint defense council would be established comprised of the foreign ministers and war ministers of both countries. The council would convene semiannually. A military command comprised of the chiefs of staff of both countries would be set up and meet on a quarterly basis. In the event of a surprise attack on one state, both countries would immediately decide on further steps in order to implement the plans of the pact. If war broke out, the Egyptian chief of staff would assume command of both armies. The treaty would be valid for five years, with the option for automatic renewal for another five years.2
The Syrians considered the defense pact a strategic-political achievement. It contained the Egyptians’ full recognition of the Ba’ath regime, and apparently tacit support of its aggressive anti-Israel strategy as well. The pact had further significance for Syria because of Egypt’s commitment to assist Syria in case of an Israeli attack. Israel’s large-scale retaliation in Jordan in November 1966 (the Samu Raid) was seen as proof of the pact’s deterrent power. It was claimed that Israel was fully aware that the hostile acts against it, though emanating from Jordan, actually originated in Syria. Despite this Israel refrained from attacking Syria, preferring to hit a country considered a close ally of the West. The Syrians believed that the reason for this was Israel’s fear of risking a war with Syria that would bring Egypt into the conflict. Israel assessed that Syria’s violent conduct had created a tangible threat to Israel’s vital interests and threatened the status quo in the Middle East
The road to the Six-Day War 67 following the 1956 Sinai Campaign. Several factors contributed to the stability of the status quo, and Israel considered them to be of the highest national interest. First, after the Sinai Campaign the Arab world, especially Egypt, believed that Israel held a military superiority, and that another armed confrontation would culminate in an Arab defeat. Therefore, an Arab-initiated war was out of the question in the near future at least. Furthermore, since the Arabs estimated that even a low-intensity conflict might result in an all-out war, they dramatically cut back on their hostilities against Israel. Thus, the daily defense problems that had plagued Israel in the early 1950s were greatly reduced as the Egyptian border became almost completely quiet. Hostilities against Israel occurred primarily on the Syrian and Jordanian borders. Although the frontier settlements were the main victims of these incidents, the settlers’ preparedness was much higher than the national average. In general, we may conclude that following the Sinai War, Israel gained a period of relative tranquility that enabled it to funnel a large portion of its resources to urgent socioeconomic problems that had been neglected because of the exigency of external threats. In the pre-Six-Day War period Nasser and other Egyptian leaders expressed in public and private their opposition to war with Israel. Nasser specifically stated that Egypt would not be dragged into a war until it was ready. Senior Egyptian officials told the United States that Egypt had informed Syria in the clearest of terms not to expect Egyptian assistance in case of a flare-up with Israel resulting from Syrian provocation. Egyptian statesmen referred to the need to “freeze the conflict.” Some even went further and talked about some form of political arrangement with Israel. Egypt’s objective situation – the greater part of its army was bogged down in a civil war in Yemen, was well aware of Egypt’s military inferiority vis-à-vis Israel and – strengthened the view in Israel that the Egyptian leadership wanted the status quo to continue, at least for the foreseeable future. Prior to the Six-Day War, the Egyptians embarked upon an audacious initiative. Field Marshal Amar, Egypt’s Vice President, invited the head of the Mossad, Meir Amit, to visit Egypt and meet with senior Egyptian officials. The agenda included a variety of Egyptian–Israeli issues: 1 2 3 4 5 6
The release of the “Affair” prisoners, held in Egypt since 1954. The establishment of a hot-line between the two countries. Discussion on how to avoid clashes over the Jordan River diversion. The release of the Israeli spy, Mordechai Lotz. The regulation of Israeli flights over the Straits of Tiran. The termination or reduction of Israeli aid to royalist forces in Yemen.3
Israel’s reaction to the Egyptian initiative was cool and reserved. Its suspicion of Egypt’s real motives and the possible effects of the visit on Israel’s status were the main considerations that eventually torpedoed Amit’s trip. The main opponent to the visit was the prime minister’s special
68 The road to the Six-Day War advisor, Issar Harel, the former Mossad chief. Although Amit pleaded with the prime minister and other national leaders to seize the opportunity for direct, high-level negotiations with Egypt, his efforts encountered only indifferent, lukewarm responses. On November 27, 1966, Amit invited to his home a group of political figures, leading journalists, and professors to review issues of mutual interest to Egypt and Israel. The symposium was probably aimed at examining various options that might induce Israel’s political leadership to agree to a direct communications link between the two countries. The participants included the Knesset Members Yizhar Harari, Ya’akov Riftin, and Natan Peled; the journalists Shlomo Gross, Shmuel Shnitzer, and Ariel Ginai; Professors Shmuel Eisenstadt and David Ayalon. Senior military officers were also invited, mostly from the intelligence branch – Generals Yehoshaphat Harkavi and Aharon Yariv and Colonels David Carmon and Shlomo Gazit. The Foreign Office was represented by Mordechai Gazit. Members of the Mossad who were present, in addition to Meir Amit, were Major General Har-Even, Yitzhak Oron, Ephraim Halevi, and Menachem Navot.4 This meeting, like others that may have taken place, failed to get the nation’s leaders to approve the visit. Amit’s proposed trip to Egypt never got off the ground. Egyptian–Israeli relations were left adrift among the unanswered question: did Israel miss a historic opportunity at reaching an understanding with the Nasserite regime? Still, from the outset things might have gone awry. Or, Cairo’s initiative may have only been a ruse to lull the Israeli leadership into a false sense of security prior to an Egyptian onslaught. However, given all the reservations and misgivings, it still baffles the imagination how the state’s leaders could have allowed themselves to remain indifferent to the potentialities of the Egyptian initiative. For years Israel had endeavored to build relations with the Arab world based on direct contact without the negative interference of the Great Powers, yet it let this opportunity glide by. Amit expressed his frustration in his diary: I am extremely disappointed at the way decisions are made in Israel. My main effort will be to convince our own people . . . that [the Egyptian initiative] is the beginning of a historic process whose direction and form we can shape by our own conduct. Basically this is a cut and dry case: for the last seventeen years we’ve been clamoring that we want direct talks with the Arabs, and now that the chance has appeared we start to hesitate, dawdle around, and analyze the minor details.5 Despite the cancellation of the visit, some of the country’s leaders undoubtedly perceived the initiative as an Egyptian desire to enhance the relatively peaceful status quo with Israel. The Egyptian gambit may have been seen in the context of the “winds of peace” that were blowing in this period. At the center of this phenomenon was the Soviet initiative to ease
The road to the Six-Day War 69 the tension between India and Pakistan. Soviet arbitration at Tashkent kindled hopes for similar efforts in other tension-filled regions of the world, including the Middle East. Other examples of easing tension were the sensible declarations by Habib Bourghiba, the president of Tunisia, favoring Arab–Israeli reconciliation.6 The Egyptian trend, however, was compromised by Syria’s hostile policy toward Israel. Egypt, the professed leader of the Arab world, could not stand aside while tension between Israel and Syria heightened. In November 1966, Egypt and Syria signed a defense pact that obligated both countries to hasten to each other’s aid in the event of an attack. The pact added a far-reaching legal-political aspect to Egypt’s commitment to Syria. It meant that each time a flare-up occurred on the Syrian border Egypt’s integrity, credibility, and leadership in the Arab world was put to the test. Israel wished to preserve the status quo created after the Sinai Campaign since the international arena increasingly recognized the 1949 armistice lines as Israel’s “stable” borders (even if their “permanency” was still in question). For all practical purposes, the international community abandoned the option of forcing a political settlement on Israel that would have meant the surrender of large areas of land. This option had been very tangible prior to the Sinai Campaign. Also, the international community realized that the Palestinian refugee problem would be solved only through negotiations and coordination with Israel – not by forcing a unilateral settlement. Furthermore, it is important to note, the idea of investing Jerusalem with an international status based on the UN Partition Plan and other resolutions was practically dismissed. To recall, Israel’s leadership had been overwrought by the threat of this option in the early 1950s. Between the Sinai War and the Six-Day War Israel managed to “sheathe” itself in an impressive array of security guarantees mainly from the American administration. While they lacked a solid legal base, such as a defense treaty, these guarantees nevertheless strengthened Israel’s status as a close ally of the West, particularly of the United States. Of special importance was the fact that during this period France was secretly helping Israel develop a nuclear option. No regional or international element could disregard this status. In addition, Israel developed very close ties, especially in defense and economic matters, with peripheral states such as Iran, Morocco, Turkey, and Ethiopia, thus gaining far-reaching strategic benefits.7 We see, then, how the post-Sinai Campaign status quo brought Israel extremely important strategic assets. It also reflected the far-reaching changes that Israel underwent after the campaign. Israel’s interest in maintaining this status quo was obvious. Syria’s direct and indirect activity prior to the Six-Day War was the only factor that tangibly threatened the status quo. As Israel endeavored to counter Syrian attempts to upset the status quo, it realized that formidable constraints and hurdles blocked its efforts.
70 The road to the Six-Day War
The Samu raid King Hussein of Jordan was another example of a status quo regime. As early as 1963 Hussein engaged in high-level contacts with Israel that laid the foundation for important understandings between the two countries and reinforced the status quo. Syria, with its militant policy in the international arena, and toward Israel in particular, posed a serious threat to the Jordanian regime. The Syrians also instigated propaganda and subversive intrigues to undermine Jordan’s Hashemite dynasty. Syrian propaganda accused the Jordanian royal house of betraying the Arab world’s interests and cooperating with “imperialist” Western powers, even Israel, while Syria provided the “spearhead” in the struggle against Zionism.8 Damascus also encouraged terror organizations to attack Israel from Jordanian territory so that Jordan would be on the receiving end of Israel’s severe punishment. Tensions rose between Syria and Jordan until the Six-Day War. Following the April 7, 1967 incident, the Syrian chief of staff, Suawaydani, publicly blamed Jordan for allowing the Israeli air force to use its air space to engage Syrian planes without even warning Damascus about the impending attack. Suawaydani stressed that if the Syrians had known that the Israeli aircraft were coming from Jordan, the outcome of the dogfight would have been different. He also charged that while Jordan talked about supporting Syria, it had concentrated its forces on the Syrian border, thus limiting Syria’s freedom of action against Israel. It seemed certain that Jordan would have looked favorably upon an Israeli attack against Syria.9 In this light, it should come as little surprise that the Western countries, and the United States in particular, “graciously” absolved the pro-Western Arab states of involvement in the sabotage operations emanating from their territories. The Western Powers repeatedly demanded that Israel cease its heavy-handed reprisals on them. They expected Israel to show consideration for their interests in the region and spare its neighbors who were affiliated with the Western bloc. Washington’s reaction to the Samu raid demonstrated Israel’s limitation in retaliating against pro-Western states in the region. The Israeli reprisal (codenamed Operation Shredder) took place on November 13, 1966 in response to terrorist attacks originating in Jordan. Two days earlier, an IDF command car went over a landmine in the southern sector of the Hebron Mountains killing three soldiers and wounding six. The security establishment, and especially the IDF, felt that the Jordanian regime, led by King Hussein, had not been firm enough in eradicating, or at least significantly reducing terrorism even though the king had repeatedly stated that these acts ran counter to his country’s interests.10 In response, Israel launched a daylight raid using infantry and armor. The target was the Jordanian village of Samu, believed to have been the infiltrators’ staging point. The chief of staff, Yitzhak Rabin, noted in his report to the US military attaché in Israel that 428 raiders, 8 Centurion tanks, and
The road to the Six-Day War 71 approximately 50 halftracks had participated in the raid. It ended with 1 Israeli being killed and 11 wounded. Fifteen Jordanian soldiers and 4 civilians were dead, 17 wounded, and 16 houses destroyed. Israel’s official communiqué stated the following: The campaign was intended to bring home to the inhabitants in the region their need to cease cooperating with, and extending aid and encouragement to the saboteurs. The IDF’s mission had been carried out in accordance with this limited objective and the troops had been explicitly ordered to avoid unnecessary casualties. The soldiers were careful about evacuating buildings before dynamiting them. They completed their mission and returned to the base. As events developed, the raid escalated in scope for [reasons of] self-defense, and both sides suffered casualties.11 The Samu raid caused serious repercussions in Jordan. Violent protests broke out in the West Bank. The demonstrators demanded that the king respond with vengeance to the Israeli raid. They also demanded arms for self-defense. Jordan’s enemies, especially Egypt and Syria, exploited the incident to denounce Hussein who, they charged, cooperated with the enemies of the Arab world and was opposed to those forces in the Arab world striving to strengthen Arab nationalism. Israel’s operation, they contended, had proven beyond doubt the futility of Jordan’s policy of submission and the regime’s impotence at protecting Palestinian nationals. In the aftermath of the Samu raid, Hussein’s reign was in serious trouble. The king, it seems, was convinced that the operation was only one step in Israel’s overall plan to take control of areas in the West Bank. The international community, and the United States in particular, also criticized the raid. Washington claimed that the Israeli action was out of proportion to the sabotage preceding it. The sabotage was basically a criminal action that confronted every state, and the struggle against such acts is waged by police forces. Therefore, Israel should also employ police measures rather than carry out heavy-handed military strikes. It was also claimed that Israel had behaved ungratefully toward the US administration. Although Israel received substantial aid in many fields it was acting, nonetheless, in a manner detrimental to America’s most vital interests in the region. Israel was fully aware that Jordan was a close ally of the West and that the raid would cause the regime grave injury and undermine its stability. Israel should have also known that the large-scale reprisal would hurt America’s standing in Jordan. Furthermore, Israel reaped little benefit from the raid since it weakened moderate circles in Jordan whom it was obviously in Israel’s interest to safeguard. Washington went on to charge that Israel realized that Jordan was making great efforts in restraining hostile forays across the border. This last raid only detracted from Jordan’s struggle to contain these elements. If Israel felt it had to retaliate, why did it not
72 The road to the Six-Day War do so against Syria where the real responsibility lay and where an anti-West policy dominated?12 The White House’s anger heightened when it learned that shortly after the mine exploded King Hussein sent a message to Israel, via the United States ambassador in Amman, expressing his regret at the loss of lives and announcing his intention to continue impeding the infiltrators. The message reached the prime minister on November 13, 1966, at 9 a.m. just as the Samu Operation was ending. The same day Eshkol sent the king a missive that his message had arrived too late and that the operation had been directed against a specific locale that had aided the saboteurs – not against the king or his regime. Eshkol communicated his hope that the raid would deter the locals from lending further assistance to the terrorists and that it would advance the mutual interests of the two countries. The White House refused to deliver the message to Hussein, claiming that the message’s purpose to explain Israel’s retaliation policy was unacceptable to the administration.13 All of Israel’s explanations – that the operation was not aimed against the king but against the terrorist organizations – were received with skepticism by American officials. They also refused “to buy” Israel’s claim that the raid would eventually motivate the Hashemite regime to take stronger measures against the terrorists, thereby strengthening the regime’s prestige and stability. Johnson’s special assistant, Robert W. Komer, told the Israeli ambassador to the United States, Avraham Harman, that the president was “extremely upset” and demanded that Israel “lay off Jordan.” A State Department memorandum reveals that the White House seriously considered suspending, or detaining, the sale of military hardware in order to penalize and deter Israel, and reassure King Hussein of America’s support.14 Hussein was critical not only of Israel but also of the United States. He claimed that Washington had told him that the main danger to Jordan would come from Syria – not Israel, but the Samu raid proved that Israel was his main enemy. Hussein also expressed disappointment in the United States for not preventing the Israeli incursion. He implied that Washington’s status in the Arab world had been based mainly on its position as the only great power capable of curbing Israel’s operations against the Arabs. Israel’s use of American-made Patton tanks in the raid proved this assumption wrong, and further angered Hussein. The king demanded immediate military aid from the United States. He stated that this would prove that the United States was a true ally of Jordan – not only in words but also in deeds. Furthermore, the arms would enable him to convince his army that a similar raid would not be repeated. He made it clear that he had other sources for weapons, though he gave first priority to American arms. He emphasized that if his demands were not met, he might lose the army’s support and this could have devastating consequences on his regime.15 Johnson tried to calm the king. He sent a message stating that the administration would assist Jordan in this difficult period, and had informed
The road to the Six-Day War 73 Israel “in the strongest terms” that it objected to the Samu raid. The president also admitted to Hussein that the American ambassador in Amman had communicated to him the king’s concern that Israel might be planning to occupy the West Bank. Johnson left no doubt that he appreciated the king’s apprehension but added that Washington had good reason to believe that this scenario would not materialize. Israel had been told in the clearest terms possible that any attempt to implement this policy “would have the gravest consequences.”16 In a conversation with the American ambassador, Hussein expressed his satisfaction with the president’s letter and asked that his gratitude be conveyed to Johnson. Hussein must have been aware of the administration’s concern over the precariousness of the Hashemite regime. Washington estimated that Hussein’s downfall would generate ongoing instability in the region and perhaps even lead to an Arab–Israeli confrontation that would greatly jeopardize America’s national interests.17 In a meeting with the US military attaché in Israel, Chief of Staff Rabin tried to temper American criticism. He presented the attaché with unpublished details of the raid showing that Israel had had no intention of harming the Jordanian regime. He explained that Israel faced three alternatives after the mining incident in the Arava: 1 2
3
Refrain from taking any action. This was ruled out because of the heavy pressure on the government to respond. Hit Syria. Rabin favored this option since Syria was the source of the terror campaign, but in this case, the attack occurred so far from the Syrian border that Syria could not be blamed. Retaliation against Jordan (the preferred option).18
Rabin stressed that he had been completely in charge during all the stages of the raid. The first armored force reached the target area at 5 a.m. and waited for approximately half an hour in order to give the Jordanians ample warning. He wanted them to realize that resistance against an armored column would be futile. He also wanted to give the locals enough time to clear out. Rabin claimed that no Mirage aircraft had been sent into action but two Ouragan jets circled overhead for observation purposes. The pilots were ordered to hold their fire so as not incur unnecessary loss of life. The planes went into action only when Jordanian Hunter aircraft appeared. Even then the Israeli jets did not attack ground targets. Rabin estimated that most of the local inhabitants managed to escape. The entry of Jordanian troops into the area was very surprising, Rabin added, because it was hard to believe that “those idiots” would attempt to engage an armored column. Rabin emphasized that he had instructed his men to cease firing as otherwise the entire Jordanian force would have been wiped out. He also claimed to have done everything in his power to reduce losses. The aim was to finish the raid as quickly as possible and return home. There had
74 The road to the Six-Day War been no intention to occupy parts of the West Bank and certainly not to topple King Hussein’s regime. Rabin hoped that the king understood that.19 A second diplomatic channel was used to appease Washington’s anger. The Israeli ambassador to Washington informed administration officials that Israel was willing to consult with them on steps it might take to contribute to Jordan’s stability. Israel revealed that it had already taken some moves in this direction: it had cancelled its convoys to Mount Scopus (a Jewish enclave in the Jordanian part of Jerusalem) during the demonstrations in Jordan, and had reduced the number of trains running to Jerusalem (that passed by West Bank Palestinian villages). Israel was also prepared to agree to Jordan’s deployment of Patton tanks, preferably unarmed, in the West Bank so that it could make a show of its might. Israel would also allow American aircraft from the Sixth Fleet to cross its air space at night and fly over potential Israeli targets in the West Bank – Nablus, Jenin, and Tulkarm – to demonstrate the US support of the Hashemite regime and also to serve as a deterrence to anti-Hashemite elements. Israel agreed that the White House give Hussein the green light to transfer military units into West Bank cities in order to quell the disturbances without fear that Israel would exploit the situation.20 In conclusion, after the Samu Operation, Israel realized that its ability to retaliate against pro-Western Arab states – such as Jordan and Lebanon – was extremely limited, although such responses could force the Jordanians to adopt more vigorous measures to oppress palestinian terror against Israel. This was true even when their apathy in halting terrorist attacks emanating from their territory was obvious. Naturally, Jordanian and Lebanese representatives rejected this view. They repeated in Western capitals that the hostilities against Israel were being carried out by “radical elements” in the Arab world – a not too-disguised reference to Syria. They also stated that although their security forces lacked the means to obstruct this activity, they were doing their best to reduce it. In this light it was in Israel’s interest to assist them in the struggle, and raids such as the Samu Operation only weakened their ability to counter infiltration into Israel. The Western countries generally accepted these claims.21 Under these circumstances Israel understood that Syria was the only practical target for retaliation. Another factor that probably contributed to Israel’s “decision” to strike at Syria was the impression that silence on Israel’s part would have a damaging influence on the Arab states’ attitude – first and foremost Egypt’s and Jordan’s – toward Israel. In other words, Israel estimated that without a swift and determined reaction to Syrian hostility, pressure would grow on other Arab states to increase border tension with Israel. This could lead to a total upheaval in the Middle East’s status quo.
The American position Following the Samu operation, Syria became the sole country Israel could justifiably retaliate against without inviting a serious confrontation with the
The road to the Six-Day War 75 American-led Western Powers. Only in the Syrian theater could Israel tangibly and resolutely exhibit its determination not to play by rules of the game which were unacceptable to her. Only in the Syrian theater could Israel demonstrate its unquestionable military superiority even if this required taking exceptional measures. Israel’s leaders believed that the demonstration of Israeli air superiority against Syria would strengthen Israel’s deterrence in the eyes of the Arabs and reduce the threat of an Egypt-initiated war. In the wake of an Israeli–Syrian border incident involving Israeli jets in August 1966, Chief of staff Rabin stated: The Syrians thought they could dictate the rules of border incidents to us. They thought that if they employed guerrilla tactics we would respond in kind. However, we made it clear that the choice of the reaction depend on [our interests and goals] – not on the other side’s modus operandi. We chose an unorthodox means in order to prove once and for all that we view the Syrian provocations against us as a very serious matter. I advise the other side to remember that it is Israel who determines the rules of the game. Its policy is not to follow the other side’s dictates. The IDF has a long arm and a diverse arsenal that it can employ against Syria . . . [Israeli] authorities – not the [enemy] – will decide how to wield them.22 Soon after this, Rabin bluntly announced the nature and aims of Israel’s action against Syria. In an interview in the army weekly, Bamachane, on September 12, 1966, he broadly implied that Israel had to direct its military activity against the Syrian regime, not against scattered military targets: [Our] response to Syria’s acts – whether sabotage, water diversion, or instigation along the border – must be aimed not only at those who carry them out but at the regime that encourages them . . . [Our] aim must be to change the regime’s decisions regarding Israel and eliminate its motive for such acts . . . Our problem with Syria is that it is essentially a confrontation with the regime. There are many similarities between this situation and our relations with Egypt in 1955–1956, although I don’t attach too much importance to historical comparisons.23 This announcement was severely criticized in public circles. Eshkol tried to temper Rabin’s statements by explaining that the chief of staff did not mean that Israel intended to bring about a regime change in Syria or intervene in its internal affairs.24 Even though Rabin knew that his words had alarmed the political level, he repeated his views during the “waiting period” just prior to the Six-Day War. In a published interview on May 14, 1967, he said: Today’s danger of war stems from the threat of escalation along the Israeli–Syrian border due to Syria’s attempt to drag other countries into a war they do not want. [Our] action in Syria is intended to alter the
76 The road to the Six-Day War regime’s policy on terrorist operations. Israel’s standard policy against such operations does not apply in the case of Syria because the regime there actively supports the terrorists. Once the Syrians realize that we know about their support of terrorism, and are determined to eliminate it by all means, it will be in their own interests to counteract [it]. [Our] methods of retaliation in Jordan and Lebanon were effective only because the terror emanating from these countries occurred against their will. The problem in Syria is different because the regime actively encourages the terrorists.25 To sum up: the overall estimate in Israel’s defense establishment was that Israel’s retaliation policy toward Syria should be designed to severely punish the regime in Damascus. This course alone might convince Syria to halt its provocations against Israel, and topple the one party that persisted in undermining regional stability. Israel also assumed that such an action, if perpetrated quickly and decisively, would not bring the Egyptians into the fray. Other countries, such as Jordan, Lebanon, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, would probably show understanding, perhaps even satisfaction at a move that ended the militant regime in Syria. As for international reactions, it was presumed that the Western Powers, first and foremost the United States, would look favorably upon an Israelinitiated war against a state like Syria that was so closely aligned with the Communist bloc, assuming that the strike would not precipitate direct Soviet involvement. Naturally this depended on a swift and decisive military engagement. The longer the campaign lasted, the more likely that the Soviet Union would enter on Syria’s side. It should be recalled that in light of the US involvement in Vietnam, it was in its strategic interest to avoid Soviet intervention in the Middle East. Available sources seem to indicate that in the pre-Six-Day War period, Israeli political and military leaders sought an understanding, even if only a covert one, with Washington regarding Israel’s need to carry out escalative reactions against Syria. In a meeting between Rabin and the US ambassador to Israel in early 1965, the Israeli chief of staff tried to clarify Syria’s relentless belligerency. He based his argument not only on the regime’s support of terrorism against Israel, but also on its diversion of the Jordan River’s water sources. From Israel’s point of view such aggression gave Israel the right to respond fiercely.26 Rabin further illustrated his point by comparing Syria’s diversion operations to Cuba’s Soviet-assisted provocations on the eve of the October 1962 missile crisis. The main point in the Cuban case was not a direct attack on the United States, but Soviet activity inside Cuba. Nevertheless, Washington justifiably regarded this development as an act of aggression. Israel also had the right to view certain measures undertaken by Syria as acts of aggression. In mid-February 1967, the Israeli Foreign Ministry invited US Embassy officials, along with Ambassador Barbour, for a tour of Israel’s northern border. According to the report of the Israeli diplomat, Shlomo Argov, most
The road to the Six-Day War 77 of the area was recognizable to Barbour only “from written material.” Now, for the first time he gained an eyewitness perception of the harsh reality that Israel faced. At the end of the visit, the ambassador admitted that many things looked “completely different” now. He also regretted not visiting the region much earlier.27 In mid-March 1967, a group of State Department officials, led by Hal Saunders and Lucius Battle visited Israel. They too were given a tour of the northern border where they met with Chief of staff Rabin, the CO (Commanding Officer) of the Northern Command, Maj. Gen. David Elazar, and other high-ranking officers. Their report clearly testifies to the way in which the IDF High Command viewed the policy that had to be adopted toward Syria. The report also reveals that some of Israel’s decision makers believed that the American administration in this period might not be averse to an Israeli operation against Syria, and might even welcome it.28 Elazar told the visitors that the problem on the Northern border would be solved only when the Syrians understood that their current policy was putting them on a collision course with the IDF, and that Syria and the regime would have to bear the consequences. Rabin and Head of Intelligence (Maj. Gen. Aharon Yariv) presented a detailed survey of the Syrians’ concept of a people’s war against Israel, and categorized the levels of Syrian responsibility for such a war. At the end of the visit, the Israelis estimated, that US officials came to realize that the solution to the problem, if it did not diminish or disappear due to other reasons at an earlier date, would only be found by dealing directly with those responsible for [the people’s war]. Those present at the meeting included Ambassadors Lucius Battle and Walworth Barbour, neither of whom expressed any reservations over what they heard. The subject was again brought up at a meeting with the prime minister. Eshkol asked them to note that we were in no hurry for a military clash with Syria. But, if there was no choice, then he requested in advance that they understand our situation and temper. Again, no objections were expressed even though the language was quite explicit . . . . In the course of the two-day border tour the visitors heard estimates and undisguised mention of the unavoidable necessity to move against Syria. Not once were any reservations or protests raised against the idea.29 Indeed, after the visit, the American guests spoke in terms that left little doubt about Washington’s attitude toward an Israeli attack against Syria. One of the diplomats noted in markedly undiplomatic terms, “The Syrians are sons-of-bitches. Why the hell didn’t you crack them over the head? It would have been the most natural thing to do.” Hal Saunders also brought up the subject of retaliation in the Samu context: That action lacked any justification. Your problem is Syria, why did you take it out on Jordan? We do not accept in any way, shape, or form that you couldn’t have moved against Syria . . . when you knew that Syria was responsible for the terrorist acts along your borders . . . 30
78 The road to the Six-Day War Two months later, in early May 1967, another group of State Department officials visited Israel and other countries in the region. The prominent figure in this delegation was Roy Atherton who served for many years in senior positions related to the Middle East and Israel in particular. The delegation met with Foreign Ministry officials and high-ranking IDF officers. The officers explained that Syria was definitely in touch with reality, conducting a policy of brinkmanship under the assumption that Israel would eventually cave in. The Syrians had not been deterred by the blow they received on April 7. The next day they opened fire on Israeli farmers near the border. A few days later, Ambassador Barbour communicated the official American position on the tension with Syria. The administration’s stand seemed very moderate and void of any expressions of anger or threat toward Israel’s military activity. Atherton made it clear that the United States was concerned about the Israeli farmers working near the border. The White House was disturbed by the potential escalation and its ramification for the entire region. He asked Israel to cease cultivating the tracts near the border. This request, he emphasized, had nothing to do with the issue itself and certainly did not represent America’s consent of Syria’s behavior. The administration was only asking for a “cooling-off period” in Israeli activity along the border.31 These reports seem to illustrate that in the months preceding the Six-Day War, the Israeli defense establishment assessed that the American administration, or at least highly influential circles in it, would not actively oppose a belligerent step by Israel against Syria, even if publicly and officially they expressed reservations over such a move. Such an assessment would undoubtedly have been of great importance to Israel in planning its responses to Syria, especially because of the fear of Soviet intervention that was capable of neutralizing any military action against Syria.32 It appears that in the first months of 1967 the Israeli defense establishment increasingly felt that circumstances might be created that would enable the implementation and intensification of the escalation policy toward Syria. Overt expression of this orientation came on April 7, 1967, when fire erupted along almost the entire length of the frontier. Israeli planes went into action and in the ensuing aerial combat six Syrian MIGs were shot down. Israeli aircraft swooped low over Damascus and it appeared that a full-blown war would break out, but at the last minute the Syrians lowered their profile and averted war. The culmination of the escalation policy toward a large-scale military operation against Syria called for a far-reaching strategic decision at the political level. But this decision was never made. The prime minister–defense minister and probably the rest of the cabinet were fully aware of the defense establishment’s attitude on Syria. But, it seems that other weighty considerations, and perhaps Eshkol’s personality, precluded a decision for such a bold and hazardous military venture. Would things have developed differently had the “go ahead” been given? The answer lies in the realm of conjecture and speculation.33
6
Criticism of the defense policy
Ben-Gurion and Rafi’s criticism Ben-Gurion’s obsessive absorption with his campaign against Eshkol and the government diverted much of his attention from Israel’s security situation – especially Jordanian–Israeli relations and the rising tension with Syria – in the years before the Six-Day War. At this stage of his life his main focus of interest seems to have been ensuring the moral image of Israel and its leadership. Another reason why he reacted so mildly to the border incidents was probably because he lacked solid information on their background and causes. His situation after his resignation on June 16, 1963 was different from what it had been after his resignation in late 1953 when he still appeared to have a strong chance of returning to power. In the early 1950s he was eagerly sought by people in key positions. Also, those closest to him, Dayan and Peres, held senior posts in the defense establishment. Therefore he was regularly updated on events and developments in the political and defense spheres. But in the summer of 1963, after resigning, his situation was very different. Now Ben-Gurion was appreciably older. His age detracted from his image as a national leader likely to return to power. Moreover, his resignation was justifiably perceived as having been forced on him by his opponents. In other words it appeared as an elegant form of dismissal. We may assume that since the Old Man wished to get rid of his opponents, they would do everything possible to make sure he never returned to power. In addition, Ben-Gurion’s dogged campaign against Eshkol transformed the Old Man into a “hostile factor” in the eyes of the majority of the country’s leaders. The prime minister and his supporters understood that Ben-Gurion’s aim went beyond the moral legal issues he harped on – it had to do with the Old Man’s insatiable political appetite. In other words he was striving to undermine the stability of Eshkol’s regime and replace it with a new leadership comprised of his protégés, supporters, and perhaps even himself. As the dispute between Ben-Gurion and Eshkol intensified, the rift between them widened. Immediately after Ben-Gurion’s resignation, Eshkol had regularly consulted him on sensitive political-security issues, but later
80 Criticism of the defense policy a barrier appeared to surface between them. It was only natural that Eshkol and his entourage cut the flow of information – especially on security issues – to the Old Man and his circle. When Peres and Dayan left their posts to join Rafi, Ben-Gurion’s information void became cavernous. Against this background, the Old Man must have felt himself severed from inside knowledge on political and security issues prior to the Six-Day War. He thus realized that his ability to influence the chain of events was extremely limited. Therefore he tended to withdraw from daily matters and concentrate on the historical picture and future generations. But some security “incidents” did grab his attention and compelled him to deal with them. Ben-Gurion kept silent on the Samu Operation while it was in progress. However, once the tension heightened between Israel and its neighbors and Israel’s international status was sullied he began to criticize the raid. He argued that it had severely shaken the position of King Hussein and his regime, a consequence that ran counter to the interests of both the West and Israel. He also blasted the operation for being directed against civilians, which stood in violation to the government’s resolution after the October 1953 Kibia Operation. “Samu,” he stressed “was a political mistake. [Israel had] no interest in undermining King Hussein. There was a general rule not to harm civilians.”1 Other members of Rafi joined Ben-Gurion in denouncing the operation, though they did so in quieter tones. Dayan, the former chief of staff, declared that “the Samu Operation was not directed against the right target. It should have been implemented against the Syrians.” He also expressed his reservations over the choice of a civilian target, though on principle he “did not disapprove of retaliation against Jordan when the [terrorists] attacked from Jordanian territory.” He concluded his speech with an indirect criticism of Ben-Gurion. If he (Dayan) had been consulted he would have opposed the operation, but once it had been launched and was over, he would have seen no point in criticizing it publicly.2 Ben-Gurion’s political campaign against Eshkol and the government as well as his concentrated critique of the strategic implications of the “security bungle,” deflected his attention from the increasing border incidents along the Syrian border in the mid-1960s. The large-scale incidents of January 1967 received no mention in his diary. Even the shooting incident of April 7 involving dozens of Israeli planes and the downing of six Syrian aircraft – an incident that many observers consider a milestone on the road to the Six-Day War – is omitted from his diary. The sole exception is a letter that he sent to the commander of the air force, Maj. Gen. Mordechai Hod, on April 8, expressing his pride at the impressive achievement. Today was a great day for Israel when above Syrian territory the air force displayed its outstanding skill, tenacity, and courage in shooting down six MIGS without any hits to its own aircraft. I am sure that our people throughout the world participate in the celebration of your flying glory together with the entire country.3
Criticism of the defense policy 81 When this occurred in early April 1967, war was not imminent. A sense of euphoria filled the air thanks to the air force’s incontestable superiority and the heavy blow it had given the Syrians. But as the crisis continued, the border incidents intensified, and Israel’s retaliations increased, it appeared that events were leading inexorably to war. Ben-Gurion was very displeased with the IDF’s modus operandi toward Syria – especially in the intensive application of the air force. Only in the middle of May 1967 – when Egypt began concentrating its forces in the Sinai and the possibility of a military confrontation magnified daily – was Ben-Gurion’s attention increasingly drawn to the growing tension between Israel and its neighbors. On May 13 Ben-Gurion and Rabin had a meeting at the latter’s initiative. Rabin wanted that meeting because he felt the need of Ben-Gurion’s support, but instead Rabin was taken aback by Ben-Gurion’s biting criticism.4 Rabin told Ben-Gurion about the April 7 incident in which 80 planes had carried out 130 sorties. Ben-Gurion left no account of the meeting. Their next tête-à-tête seems to have been on May 21, 1967, according to Ben-Gurion’s account. His notes on this meeting contrast sharply with the previously mentioned letter to Maj. Gen. Hod on the day after the air battle. This time he expresses no enthusiasm for the IDF’s action against Syria. The more that Israel’s retaliation policy became a central factor in the ominous crisis brewing in the region, the more Ben-Gurion tended to emphasize the shortcomings of the country’s defense policy toward Syria. In the second conversation with Rabin, as it appears in Ben-Gurion’s diary, he emphasized that his criticism of the defense policy was not directed against the IDF’s “professional” level but against the political level that had ordered the military into action. He wrote that, “our mobilization of 70,000 reservists [because of the Egyptian deployment in Sinai] was a political and social mistake.” He did not explain the reasoning of this statement. He probably felt that the huge call-up had come too late to defuse the tension and would only serve to escalate the tension. Perhaps he perceived the financial implications of an economic paralysis because of so large a call-up. Nonetheless, Ben-Gurion continued to rail against what he termed the “other mistakes” in the defense policy, but he did not define them in his diary. In his book, Service Record, Rabin recalls his conversation with Ben-Gurion and the distinction the Old Man made between the responsibilities of the political and military levels on the eve of the Six-Day War. Ben-Gurion naturally blamed the political level – especially Eshkol – for the mishandling of the defense policy. Independently, Ben-Gurion seems to have realized that the Egyptians, headed by Nasser, had no interest at this point in engaging in a military confrontation with Israel. Thus, Israel’s defense policy was at least partially responsible for creating the crisis. He also professed that Israel had failed to prepare itself adequately for the approaching political crisis. By not coordinating its positions with the Western Powers
82 Criticism of the defense policy it found itself in a grave security dilemma without the backing of the international community.5 When the Old Man had been at the helm of state, Israel had endeavored to avoid this unwelcome situation, but the present leadership fumbled the task. “We’re in serious trouble,” Ben-Gurion said to Rabin. “Unlike in the past, we’re now totally isolated.” Ben-Gurion contended that his criticism was aimed mainly at the political level: The army is doing a great job; the commanders are doing a great job and you’re doing a great job. But nobody tells you what to do . . . The prime minister and the government must take responsibility for deciding whether Israel goes to war or not. It’s not the IDF’s decision . . . The political level is not fulfilling its role. This is not how it is supposed to function in this period of tension . . . [It has] brought the state to an intolerable situation. It bears the responsibility.6 When Ben-Gurion finished his painful conversation with the chief of staff, he tried “sugarcoating” the bitter pill he had just dispensed, and again accused Eshkol – not Rabin – of making grave mistakes in managing the crisis. He sympathized with Rabin’s position as a loyal officer that prevented him “from telling me everything that weighs heavily on his heart. Being the commander of the army, he has to carry out orders from a defense minister whom he can not criticize.” It is doubtful, however, whether Ben-Gurion’s attempt to separate the political and the military levels’ areas of responsibility managed to calm Rabin at this critical hour: the question of “blame” was probably irrelevant at this point. The burning issue, how to ensure the security, and perhaps survival of the state, demanded concrete and immediate answers.7 Furthermore, Rabin was naturally aware of the stormy relations between Ben-Gurion and Eshkol. He must have reckoned that the Old Man’s criticism of Eshkol stemmed mainly from personal motives rather than from an objective view of the issues. In this light, Rabin probably attached very little relevance to Ben-Gurion’s tirade. Rabin also knew that his own role in shaping Israel’s general defense strategy, and the routine security policy in particular, was far greater than what Ben-Gurion attributed to him. For this reason too, he probably took Ben-Gurion’s diatribe with a grain of salt. Although Ben-Gurion held no formal ministerial position, the general public still accorded him high status and regarded him as a leading authority on security matters. Little wonder then that his criticism of the country’s defense policy, of which Rabin was one of the central formulators, left the chief of staff in a rather depressed state. Indeed, Rabin’s breakdown during the prewar waiting period reverberated throughout the country after the war, and was attributed in part to this tormenting conversation. During a Rafi meeting on May 21, 1967, Ben-Gurion expressed his doubts about the strategy of toppling the Syrian regime. He must have
Criticism of the defense policy 83 known that the idea was mainly Rabin’s. But he appears to have preferred to overlook the question of authorship of the policy. Instead he criticized the policy itself under the assumption that so far-reaching a strategic decision came within the exclusive jurisdiction of the political level. He did not argue against the idea of using force to topple the Ba’ath regime, but he felt that such an attempt under the present circumstances would be folly. Even if the policy were implemented, no basic change would occur because there was no certainty that the new regime would be different from its predecessor. It might even turn out to be more militant: “There is a danger,” he avowed, “that we’ll fail to destroy Syria’s regime . . . and [even if we succeed we must take into consideration the possibility that] figures far more militant will replace them.”8 Dayan reiterated Ben-Gurion’s words in blunter language. Unlike Ben-Gurion, Dayan had no qualms about reproving the General Staff, and its CO, Gen. Rabin. As an ex-chief of staff, Dayan was aware of Rabin’s dominant role in formulating the nation’s defense policy. His basic criticism referred to Israel’s defense policy of recent years. In this meeting, BenGurion refrained from going “all-out” in lambasting the defense policy. It was enough that he listened to Dayan’s arguments and asked questions. He may have preferred not to express his own critical view before a relatively large audience, especially on matters related to the chief of staff whom he had always held in high regard. In contrast to Ben-Gurion, and despite his own bitter criticism of the defense policy that led to a serious crisis on the eve of the Six-Day War, Dayan gave unequivocal support of a military operation against Egypt. During the previously mentioned Rafi meeting, he firmly opposed the mild, wavering positions of Ben-Gurion and Peres. He expressed his view that the Soviet Union was not behind Egypt’s military moves and would not intervene in an Egyptian–Israeli military clash. In sharp contrast to Ben-Gurion’s assessment – that Nasser wished to enhance Egypt’s status by bold military-political moves, but did not want to go to war – Dayan stated (May 21, 1967) that Egypt’s goals were much more ambitious. Egypt intended to close the Straits of Tiran to Israeli navigation and bomb the Dimona reactor. Israel’s strategic interest faced a palpable threat. Dayan also asserted that Israel held an unquestionable military advantage over Egypt so that there was no reason to fear an armed confrontation.9 This estimate stood in marked contrast to Ben-Gurion’s less than sanguine evaluation of the IDF’s superiority – an Israeli military victory would be achieved but at a terrible price. Dayan, however, was convinced that if events deteriorated to a military confrontation “Nasser would be drubbed.” He downplayed the danger of Egypt’s unconventional weapons as well as the threat of an Egyptian air strike against the reactor. At the May 21 meeting, Dayan noted that the Israeli Air Force (IAF) had the power to neutralize an Egyptian attack against the reactor: “As for the bombing of Dimona, [keep in mind] not every bomb hits [the target], and we have an
84 Criticism of the defense policy air force [too].” It is doubtful whether Ben-Gurion was calmed by such flimsy arguments.10 After the war, Dayan outlined the security establishment’s shortcomings prior to the outbreak of hostilities, focusing mainly on the faulty assessment of Egypt’s intentions. The impression is that if the security establishment had possessed a more accurate evaluation of the developments, the crisis could have been avoided. Dayan began his analysis with a review of the period prior to Egypt’s blockade of the Straits of Tiran: Before the war we made several basic errors in evaluating the situation and [our] policy. The first error was our assessment of Egypt’s reaction to our operations against Syria. The combination of Syrian and Jordanian appeals for help forced Egypt against a wall. Nasser had to join the campaign, not because we were in conflict with Egypt but because his position as the leader of the Arab world was being tested. He had to prove his ability to defend Arab states threatened by Israel. However, he would not have gone out on a limb if he did not believe that he had the strength to confront Israel. He may also have believed that Egypt could initiate hostilities and after a day or two the Russians and Americans would call for a ceasefire, and in the meantime the Straits of Tiran would remain blocked to Israeli shipping. In this way he would gain a strategic victory without involvement in extensive combat operations. When the concentration of Egyptian forces in Sinai began, we didn’t understand what was going on and thought that it was just saber-rattling. This detracted from our strength. You cannot say it’s nothing one morning, and the next day [claim] it’s deadly serious. [We also erred] for a long time in harboring the illusion and underestimation of Nasser’s ability to remove all of the UN forces [from Sinai]. I was the only one who said that he would oust the UN forces the moment it suited him.11 In essence, Dayan’s position on events after the Egyptians’ blocked the straits was the antithesis of Ben-Gurion’s. Dayan claimed that, “it was a serious mistake after the straits were closed not to go immediately to war.” He knew that Ben-Gurion did not share his opinion, but he emphasized that closure of the straits was a flagrant casus belli. We allowed Nasser to leave us blockaded. Only later did we launch the war. Forty-eight hours after [Nasser] closed the straits, we could have gone to war; [instead] we sat and waited. Then [Israel’s leaders] thought that the UN and the Americans would reopen the straits. [They should have known] that they [the UN and United States] were unable to open the straits to Israeli navigation.12
Criticism of the defense policy 85 Another ex-chief of staff, Zvi Tzur, also criticized the security policy on Syria, although in a milder tone: Our response to Syrian activity was somewhat exaggerated, especially the action on April 7 that included a hundred and thirty planes. Next came an orgy [sic] of militant declarations that were extremely harmful because the [Syrians] may have really thought [we] were about to attack them. Furthermore, our [situation estimate] had been mistaken for two years. We forgot about the Egyptians . . . [We thought that] Egypt had slipped off the map and our retaliation [against Syria] came as though the Egyptians did not exist.13 The caustic analyses by Dayan, Tzur, and other senior figures in Rafi of Israel’s defense policy in the pre-Six-Day War period give rise to many questions. Statements by Rafi leaders, especially Dayan and Peres, in the period before the war express a defense concept different from that of the waiting period just prior to the outbreak of hostilities. Rafi’s policy toward the Arab world was generally hard line and obstinate. The party’s leaders and weekly magazine, Mabat Hadash, regularly criticized the Eshkol government’s policy of moderation toward the Arab world. Rafi’s arrows were aimed mainly at Foreign Minister Abba Eban who strove to emphasize Israel’s “new” and appeasing attitude toward the Arab states that contrasted sharply with BenGurion’s policy when the Old Man had been prime minister and defense minister. The present prime minister–defense minister, Levi Eshkol, was also on Rafi’s blacklist. When it seemed to them that a confrontation was imminent, they tended to “forget” their earlier recommendations for an “iron fist” policy. In an article published in Israel’s English daily Jerusalem Post on January 29, 1965, Dayan reviewed his support of the “hard line” policy toward the Arab states. He discussed Israel’s need to respond to the Arab threat to divert the sources of the River Jordan: If the Arab states carry out their threat to divert the Jordan’s sources, it would be the first time since the Sinai Campaign that they took unilateral steps designed to harm Israel’s interests. After 1956, infiltration into Israel ceased from the Egyptian border, and from the Syrian, Jordanian, and Lebanese borders. This was the result of IDF activity that forced them to choose between continued infiltration and the continued stability of their regimes. [Israel’s] freedom of navigation through the Straits of Tiran also resulted from Nasser’s fear of Israel’s powerful retaliation in case free passage through the straits was interrupted. Capitulation on our part would only lead to further [Arab] hostilities that in turn would make [our job] far more difficult.14
86 Criticism of the defense policy The secretary of Rafi, Shimon Peres, expressed similar opinions, but in a more conciliatory manner. In an editorial in Mabat Hadash on January 25, 1967, entitled “Confronting Syria’s Rulers with an Israeli Option,” he stated, The conflict between Syria and us is not over a particular border or prerogative . . . The conduct of the present Syrian government is the result of a view that exploits the conflict in the demilitarized zones in order to assume the position of vanguard of the new Arab revolution. It is doubtful whether any political move by us will change Syria’s attitude . . . The latest air action has created a situation whereby the Syrians do not dare to shell [our] settlements. Another move [on our part] will probably convince them not to plant landmines.15 Ben-Gurion’s positions on the routine defense policy in this period are a bit muddled. As noted, he rarely discussed the subject during these years. When in office he had stubbornly avoided the “regular” use of the air force on security missions. He determined that whenever the operational need for an air strike arose, it would be carried out only with the approval of the defense minister. But a change in this policy occurred approximately one year before Ben-Gurion’s final resignation. It came about against the backdrop of the rising tension on the Syrian border and the heavy shelling of Israeli settlements. On March 20, 1962, the cabinet discussed the use of the air force on routine defense missions. The debate revolved around the question of whether the air force alone was capable of silencing the heavy Syrian shelling. At a General Staff meeting on March 21, 1962, the chief of staff summed up the government decision: “The basic approval was given to employ the air force in the event of artillery fire on [civilian] settlements. The method [of operations] is our decision.”16
Mapam’s criticism Mapam was the only Zionist party that occasionally criticized the IDF’s Syrian policy. It made its voice particularly heard in the year that preceded the Six-Day War, and especially in the months when the IDF appeared to adopt a policy of intentional escalation that was leading to a full-blown Arab–Israeli clash. However, at the same time Mapam’s criticism was generally low keyed and in complete sympathy with the border settlements that were the main victims of the Syrian shelling. The Syrian regime nearly always figured as the main culprit for the border tension. In media commentary on the incidents, Israel’s rights in the demilitarized zones were always emphasized. For example, the armistice agreement with Syria made no reference to Syria’s right to cultivate the land or fish in these areas, even though Syria had demanded that such a reference be included in the agreement. Mapam’s commentators also noted the Ba’ath regime’s need to heat up the border for domestic reasons – such as diverting the population’s
Criticism of the defense policy 87 attention from the country’s severe economic situation, garnering support for the regime against its political opponents, and advancing Syria’s hard-line position in the Arab world. Some of the articles by people affiliated with Mapam expressed tacit reserve over the claim that Syria was planning a war with Israel. They implied, in effect, that accusing Syria of warmongering served the aims of certain factions in Israeli political and military leadership circles. Occasionally the idea was expressed that although the Syrians wanted to prolong the dispute with Israel, they had no real interest in embarking upon an all-out military confrontation. They preferred to keep the conflict on a low flame, in the belief that it was highly unlikely that sporadic border incidents would justify Israel’s launching a full-scale war. Israel, for its part, had to limit its responses lest its escalation erupt into an all-out confrontation. “The assumption that the Syrians want to drag Israel into a war is hard to accept,” Eliezer Reiner, a journalist for the Mapam organ, Al Hamishmar, wrote: This assumption attributes an exaggerated degree of stupidity to the Syrian leadership . . . The exchange of fire in the contested areas, harassment in the demilitarized zones, the landmines, and sabotage – no matter how serious they are – are not intended to throw Israel off balance or force it to mobilize the IDF in a massive operation. An imminent war is not expected in the near future.17 Mapam’s leadership was extremely apprehensive that the government’s Syrian policy would eventually lead Israel to launching a preventive war – the last thing that the left-wing party wanted. In March 1965, Meir Ya’ari, Mapam’s leader, stated that, Regarding the Israeli–Syrian dispute over the diversion of water sources, the situation in the country is reminiscent recalls of the atmosphere prior to the Sinai Campaign. At the time we were misled – there was talk about a campaign in Jordan while it was clear to [the national leadership] that the campaign would be in Sinai. At the time we were able to count on Britain and France to join in the war against Egypt. Today the situation is far more dangerous. We cannot initiate a war over the water issue. [Averell] Harriman [Johnson’s special envoy] has warned us about this. We cannot expect any assistance in this respect and we cannot stray from any measures beyond that of a political war . . . Any war that we initiate across our borders will be seen as an unjustified preventive war . . . Eshkol is under pressure [to launch a preventive war] by the same forces that talk about giving the army a free hand in dealing with Syria.18 Mapam declared that it was far from being a party of pacifists. Mapam’s leaders supported Israel’s development of a deterrent force. They were of
88 Criticism of the defense policy the opinion that the Arab leaders should be informed that this force would be applied if necessary. The party’s leadership explained that it did not reject the use of military force in principle, but that it should be applied only as part of a comprehensive political campaign and not as an exclusive means. Moreover, Israel’s leaders had to assume that the military option is “the last resort” and would be used only after it was absolutely certain that all other means to lower the tension with Syria had been expended. Ya’acov Hazan, another Mapam leader, discussed the security situation in late 1966: “We thought that it was first necessary to exploit all political means [available] . . . If [Syria’s provocations] persist then we’ll be facing a most serious situation, and it might be necessary to employ military means.”19 Mapam leaders also stressed that even when military force is unavoidable, it had to be wielded wisely and level-headedly, without vengeance or rage. In the Knesset Hazan said: We are involved in a web of intrigues. Our enemies probably have no control over their actions and are not proceeding according to a calculated plan. We cannot act in similar fashion. If we want to survive, we have to control our anger and use common sense. We must surrender our impassioned fury to sober reasoning. We are surrounded by plots and cannot allow ourselves to get caught up in them. Syria’s leaders want anarchy – we want construction. They want murder – we want life. They want war – we want peace. They want to see rivers of blood carving out chasms between us, between the people of Israel and the Arabs – we want to build bridges of understanding and cooperation.20 Within this context, it is obvious why Mapam’s leaders expressed their reservations over Rabin’s remarks regarding Israel’s Syrian policy. His comments were viewed as the military level’s desire to trumpet the Syrian army’s weaknesses and inability to react “properly” to the IDF’s operations against Syria. Some of Rabin’s statements seemed to be of a political nature, thus raising the question of proper civil–military relations in a democracy and the need to subordinate the army to the political level. Another critic for the Mapam organ wrote: The commander-in-chief of our army is the defense minister – a civilian authority. Our chiefs-of-staff are part of the military branch. They are rotated on a regular basis in order to prevent the rise of a junta. There is a clear division between the two authorities; nevertheless our senior officers come out with declarations on “high-level” policy dealing with current matters that go beyond the framework of their authority . . . It seems that Rabin’s latest warning was only intended to convince Syria to cease its provocations and attacks against Israel. However, a deeper look shows that Rabin went further toward a political goal this time, . . . and painted the regime in Damascus as the target of Israeli retaliation.21
Criticism of the defense policy 89 According to Mapam’s leaders, the party did not completely rule out military retaliation. However, it insisted that Israel’s response should be proportional to the initial attack. This would signal the Syrians that Israel intended to thwart provocation – not to escalate the situation. Hazan stressed that, Mapam did not totally object to defense operations. Defensive measures were probably the only alternative in our struggle with the Syrians. But we must take into account where [to react], the particular area [where the exchange of fire occurred] and the weapons to be used.22 Finally, the leaders of Mapam emphasized that the government must not choose a security policy based on domestic political considerations. Members of the left-wing party tended to complain that Eshkol’s retaliatory policy had much to do with pressure from Ben-Gurion and his supporters as well as from the prime minister’s aversion to being perceived as a feckless leader in comparison with Ben-Gurion. Hazan noted, Internal pressures have influenced [the security policy toward Syria]. Rafi viewed Israel’s appeals to the United Nations against Syrian hostilities as a crime and sacrilege. Rafi totally opposes our political approach. They believe the only thing to do is to retaliate with force. If Ben-Gurion were prime minister and Shimon Peres defense minister we would already be at war.23 Following the April 7 aerial incident, Mapam heightened its criticism of Israel’s security policy. Some of the party’s leaders felt that Israel’s retaliation policy to Syria had gone overboard and was liable to deteriorate toward war. The inner Mapam debate on this issue illustrates various levels of criticism – beginning with moderate censure by Ya’akov Hazan and rising to a much graver reproach by Ya’akov Riftin. Hazan justified the April 7 air force action, claiming it was based on the principle that the IAF would respond when the Syrians shelled civilian settlements. He had second thoughts, however, about buzzing Damascus. He made no mention of Israel’s proclivity to cultivate new tracts of land in the demilitarized zone. Hazan and other Mapam spokespeople seem to be saying that the Israeliinitiated farming of fallow plots in the demilitarized zone had caused the serious incident of April 7, 1967. During a meeting of Mapam’s political committee a few days after the incident, Hazan stated: From the minute the Syrians opened fire with their artillery, [our] planes were ordered in because the Syrians had the upper-hand topographically. Some of the planes attacked the mortars, while a second group patrolled the skies. The planes were instructed not to measure distances during the fighting [i.e. they were permitted to fly over
90 Criticism of the defense policy Damascus]. We still believe that the use of aircraft is permitted only when Israeli settlements are at risk and have to be protected. [Kibbutz] Gadot was hit this time, [and this justified the use of the air force] . . . [However] we reject the flexible policy [that allowed the planes to buzz] Damascus. We also reject the plowing of new tracts that have not been farmed till now, just as we reject [the position that says] we should cease work in previously cultivated areas.24 Almost one month later, as tension mounted along the Syrian border, Hazan again voiced his fear of an approaching war. Taking into account Mapam’s long-held pro-Soviet orientation, he displayed courage in criticizing Soviet policy in the region: [I]nternational involvement in the region has darkened our situation. There has never been a time like this in history, when we had to be so cautious in our policy and weigh each step we undertook. The situation is very tense. Since April 7 eighteen acts of sabotage have taken place . . . We are faced with a massive, undeserved attack especially from the socialist camp and this chiefly represents the Soviet Union’s position that blames Israel for the Middle East situation . . . I am certain that [the Soviet Union] knows the truth. But for its own reasons it denies this truth . . . dragging the region to the brink . . . [Israel] and the Arab states are the victims of international forces. Although we assume that [the Arabs] are interested only in [maintaining a high level of] tension and not [having it] explode, the situation and developments might not fit into the planners’ design. Syria is the center of the terrorist groups . . . We criticized the April 7 operation even though it is not easy to condemn a successful action . . . by concentrating so many heavy arms in Sinai, Egypt is playing with fire. The tension has already surpassed the limit [that the planners intended]. We shall do everything in our power to exercise restraint and not let [the situation] deteriorate to perilous acts.25 The harshest criticism of Israel’s defense policy came from Ya’akov Riftin, a second-string figure in Mapam. He implied that the April 7 incident resulted from the decision of the defense establishment to plow tracts of land that had not been farmed before, fully aware that this would invoke a sharp Syrian reaction: “Whoever decided to plow [the tracts near Kibbutz] Haon could have presumed that it would lead to a military incident. Why [did we have] to enter a military conflict? This is a miscalculation and a faulty decision.”26 The next month, Riftin returned to the April 7 incident. By this time tension in the region had reached unprecedented levels following the UN pullout from Sinai, and his criticism was much more incisive. He blatantly accused Israel for initiating the incident in order to heat up the border and cause
Criticism of the defense policy 91 a deterioration in Egyptian–Israeli relations. Speaking before his party colleagues, he said: It’s about time that we discuss the April 7 incident. I think it was unnecessary for us to cultivate those plots [in the demilitarized zones]. I believe that the critical April 7 decision has placed us in danger of war. There was no political need or security rationale to farm those plots. The acts that followed were in response to our activity of April 7. I read in our [party] paper that if there are casualties on the northern border, automatic authorization will be given for a military response. And I ask: Is this right? Should we not say: No automatic military action . . . Is this not a watered-down version of Ben-Gurionism? . . . Our strength has been in our defense . . . It was not necessary to act militarily . . . Our job today is to prevent war, externally and domestically.27
7
Ben-Gurion confronts the war
The first stages of the crisis On May 15, 1967, Israel celebrated Independence Day with an IDF parade through Jerusalem’s streets. This event, like previous military parades in the city, elicited a worldwide protest since they were perceived as violations of United Nations resolutions regarding the status of Jerusalem and the Israeli–Jordanian armistice agreement. Eshkol’s deliberation before agreeing to the parade, and Ben-Gurion’s stinging criticism of his indecision, also seem to have brought the issue of Jerusalem’s status to the forefront of the international agenda. In this light it was difficult for the Western Powers to respond calmly to the procession. The White House informed Israel that the American ambassador would not be present at the event. On May 14 and 15, Egypt began to move its forces into Sinai. The deployment was widely reported in the Egyptian media. Egyptian sources further claimed that the concentration of the forces was intended to deter Israel from attacking Syria. Israel interpreted Egypt’s undisguised maneuver as the belligerent expression of an arrogant self-confident leader. Egypt’s show of military might was the outcome of Syria’s pleas to Cairo to take steps to deter Israel from launching an offensive against Damascus. Unless Egypt responded positively to Syria’s appeal, it would jeopardize its position as leader of the Arab world. On May 15, the CO (commanding officer) of the Southern Command, General Yeshayahu Gavish, informed Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin: “Reports say that the Egyptian army has started entering Sinai. I’m not exactly sure what this means but it’s definitely far more serious than anything we’ve ever encountered.”1 On May 17, Israel learned that Egypt was demanding the evacuation of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF). This force had been stationed in Sinai since the IDF withdrawal after the 1956 Sinai Campaign. In early 1967 this force numbered 4300 troops from 5 countries – Sweden, Brazil, Canada, Yugoslavia, and India. Each country contributed 1 regiment. The 5 regiments were under the command of a joint headquarters made up of representatives of the 5 countries. The overall commander was an Indian general named Rikhye, who was accountable to the UN Secretary
Ben-Gurion confronts the war 93 General. The Emergency Force operated in two main sectors: the Gaza Strip and Sinai. The Swedish, Brazilian, and Indian regiments were deployed in the Gaza Strip; the Canadian and Yugoslavians in Sinai. Elements of the Yugoslavian regiment were stationed around Sharm al-Sheikh at the southern tip of the Sinai Peninsula in order to ensure the free passage of vessels through the Straits of Tiran. Egypt’s motive for demanding the removal of UN forces still remains a mystery. According to the report of an Indian diplomat in Cairo, a known confidant of General Rikhye, Egypt acted without any intention of going to war with Israel. Egypt’s leaders only wanted the UN forces to pull back from the border with Israel so they would not get hurt in case of a border flare-up. The Indian diplomat attested that Egypt’s defense minister, Field Marshal Amar, had instructed the chief of staff, General Fawzi, in this spirit. This report seems to have been politically motivated. It was undoubtedly intended to place the blame for the outbreak of hostilities on Israel rather than Egypt.2 In effect, Egypt “passed the ball” to the UN Secretary General, U Thant who now had to decide whether to evacuate the UNEF or enlist international support against Egypt’s demand. In the end, he agreed to pull the UN forces out, reporting to the General Assembly that from the outset the Egyptians had left him little choice. He emphasized that he had regretfully complied with the Egyptian demand since he had no other alternative. His speedy decision was sharply criticized in Israel and Washington because it was politically unsound and legally unnecessary. From the legal point of view, he could have brought an issue of such importance to a debate before the General Assembly. The postponement of the implementation of Egypt’s demand might have cooled the crisis down and maybe even frozen it for a long time. Israel claimed that this would have been in line with the understandings it reached with the former secretary general, Dag Hammarskjöld, after the Sinai Campaign. Israel also charged that U Thant’s eager acquiescence to the removal of UN troops left Egypt with no alternative but to proceed with escalatory steps lest it appear weak and frightened in the international arena. Presently available documents belie the harsh reproach that was leveled at the secretary general. Reliable data suggests that the Egyptian government had notified the Yugoslavian and Indian governments of its intention to call for a UNEF pullout even before the official request was handed to the UN authorities. Yugoslavia and India decided jointly that if the UN secretary general did not respond to Nasser’s demands, they would unilaterally evacuate their troops. Yugoslavian and Indian representatives apparently confronted U Thant with their ultimatum even before the Egyptian demand was conveyed to the UN. They informed him that they would unilaterally withdraw their forces from the UNEF if he refused to authorize the pullback. Under these circumstances, U. Thant realized that he had no choice but to approve Egypt’s demand.3 According to other sources the Yugoslavian and Indian units began to withdraw even before the official UN decision was made. Most significant
94 Ben-Gurion confronts the war was Yugoslavia’s pullout from the Sharm al-Sheikh area overlooking the Straits of Tiran. This move put Egypt in a dilemma. It had to choose the lesser of two evils: either take control of the area and block the straits to vessels bound for Israel’s Red Sea port of Eilat (a move that would almost certainly place her on a collision course with Israel) or refrain from doing so, and thus lose face in the Arab world for appearing as a nation that feared a confrontation with Israel and hid behind the UNEF’s apron strings. In the end, Egypt chose the first option.4 Scholars and politicians have long contended that Egypt wanted to avoid a military confrontation with Israel but was dragged into it because of a chain of events – termed a “rolling crisis.” According to this view, Egypt did not “really” intend for the UNEF to withdraw from Sinai, but only wanted to “flex its muscles” in order to deter Israel from attacking Syria. U Thant, however, suddenly changed the game rules and decided on a complete pullout. The only option left to Egypt was to blockade the straits. From this point on war was inevitable. The facts, however, tend to lessen the credibility of this evaluation. Egypt’s coordination of the withdrawal of two allied states (Yugoslavia and India) greatly strengthens the opposite assessment: that in the waiting period, at least in its first stages, Egypt set in motion a pre-arranged plan rather than precipitate a rolling crisis, as many observers tended to believe. Once the UNEF evacuated Sinai and Egyptian forces gained control of the Sharm al-Sheikh area, the blocking of the Straits of Tiran to Israel’s territorial waters was only a matter of time. Indeed, a few days after the withdrawal of UNEF Egypt declared the straits closed to vessels flying the Israeli flag, as well as foreign vessels carrying “strategic materials” (mainly arms and oil) to Israel. Israel described the move as Egyptian provocation and aggression, and regarded the blockade as a casus belli. Against this backdrop, feverish political activity took place in order to prevent the outbreak of hostilities, but the efforts came to nought on June 5. During the crisis, the Egyptian position, stated in public and diplomatic circles, was characterized by a high degree of determination, self-confidence, and brazenness. Egypt’s sabre-rattling bombast over the upcoming victory received wide publicity. Today, we know, that similar positions, even bolder ones, were touted at the highest political level in Egypt in diplomatic contacts with the Americans. For example, Nasser informed the American envoy, Robert Anderson, a few days before the outbreak of war, that Israel would initiate an attack, but he was confident that the final results would be in Egypt’s favor.5 The Egyptians stubbornly blamed Israel and the United States for the crisis. Eshkol’s government was accused of scheming to topple the Syrian regime by means of a wide-scale military operation. The Egyptians stressed that their information was based on their own sources – not Soviet ones, as American and Israeli diplomats claimed. The United States was also charged with responsibility for the crisis, as well as for the creation of the
Ben-Gurion confronts the war 95 State of Israel, whose aggression it abetted. Washington had always supported Israel, and had never played the role of a neutral party in the conflict. Egypt also claimed that prior to the crisis, Washington had guaranteed Israel the protection of the Sixth Fleet stationed in the Mediterranean. This reinforced Israel’s confidence and allowed it to plot against its neighbors – especially Syria. Egypt further accused the White House of extending nearly unqualified support of Israel since the beginning of the crisis, thus placing itself in conflict with Egypt and to a great extent with all of the Arab states.6 Senior Egyptian officials not only charged the United States with inciting Israel to implement its provocative policy against the Arab world, but also with attempting to destroy both the Nasserite regime and President Nasser. A few months before the war, the American ambassador to Egypt had reported that almost all top-level officials in Egypt believed that the CIA was planning on eliminating the Egyptian regime, and in particular Nasser. Some were even convinced that the CIA was conducting its “own independent policy” that other circles in the US administration had no knowledge of. Egyptian Foreign Minister Mahmud Riyad made a similar claim to the American ambassador, professing that Egypt had solid evidence for these allegations. Nasser raised the same issue, almost offhandedly, with UN Secretary U Thant. He regretted that he could not participate in the Conference of the Heads of African States about to convene in Kinshasa in August 1967 because he feared the CIA would try to eliminate him there.7 When Egyptian representatives referred to Nasser’s decision to blockade the Straits of Tiran, they pointed out that it was the prerogative of an independent state to do what it wanted in areas under its full sovereignty. No country, not even the United States, had the right to dictate to Egypt how to act in its own area. Egypt promised that it would halt Israeli ships and seize strategic cargos, especially oil. The Egyptian spokesmen warned that if American warships attempted to run the blockade Egypt would not hesitate to open fire.8 At the same time, that, Egyptian representatives demonstrated their resolute stand regarding freedom of passage through the straits, they also tried to spread smoke screens designed to give the impression that Egypt might consider a peaceful solution to the crisis. Egypt’s “only” objective, they declared, was to restore the area to its pre-1956 (Sinai Campaign) status. The repeated use of this phrasing may have been intended to imply that despite Egypt’s blockade of the straits, it was still willing to deal with the issue as it had done prior to 1956. In other words, it would not implement a permanent and unconditional blockade. This assessment gains further credibility in light of the information that a senior Soviet representative conveyed to American officials: “Nasser announced the closure of the straits but he did not block them in practice.” The Soviet representative then demanded that the American administration refrain from insisting that Nasser officially declare his intention to avoid blocking the straits, and instead, take steps to make it easier for the Egyptian president to retreat from carrying out his threat.9
96 Ben-Gurion confronts the war In an effort to exhibit moderation, Egyptian spokesmen made noncommittal (but not negative) comments on the suggestion to submit the question of Israeli shipping through the straits to a neutral third party. Nasser, for example, expressed reservations (but not objections) to the idea of letting the UN decide the issue. He charged that Israel attached little importance to UN resolutions, often disregarding them. Therefore, it was doubtful if it would accept a UN decision not in its favor. In contrast, the Egyptian ambassador to the United States expressed limited support of the idea. Nasser displayed a more positive attitude to the proposal to refer the issue to the International Court in The Hague. He declared his willingness to consider the idea seriously.10 Other compromises were raised that the Egyptians hinted they would consider. These included Egypt’s willingness to implement the blockade on the basis of the “flexible use” of the list of “strategic materials” acceptable to Washington (“US Act of Battle – List of Strategic Materials”). Oil was not defined on this list as “strategic material.” The Egyptian representatives also expressed readiness to examine the transport of oil to Israel on ships flying foreign flags – on condition that the quantity of oil would be strictly limited to civilian needs.11 In another attempt to show “moderation,” Egyptian officials at the highest level of government weighed a political solution to the crisis by committing Egypt not to be the first party to open hostilities. President Nasser and Foreign Minister Riad declared that Egypt was prepared to absorb a “first strike” even if an Israeli attack appeared imminent. It should be noted that until the outbreak of the war American intelligence estimates believed that the Egyptian army was deployed defensively in Sinai. This, most probably, indicates that Egypt was indeed committed to refrain from launching a first strike against Israel.12 It is difficult to offer a precise assessment of the motives behind the Egyptians’ stand to refrain from launching the first strike. Egypt probably put too much confidence in the US guarantee that Israel would not dare to initiate hostilities without American backing. Washington had informed the Egyptians that it not only refused to support an Israeli military operation, but had also admonished Israel’s leadership not to take any such steps in that direction. The Egyptians may have also reckoned that even if Israel decided to launch an attack, it would be a limited one that Egypt could absorb. Afterwards Egypt would have the upper hand in negotiating an arrangement. Another possible scenario was that Egypt intended to lull Israel into a false sense of security in order to gain a strategic surprise, when it would initiate hostilities after transforming the defensive formation into an offensive one.
Ben-Gurion’s fluctuating positions During most of the crisis, Ben-Gurion felt that a solution could be attained without resorting to a military confrontation. He probably recalled the 1960
Ben-Gurion confronts the war 97 crisis, codenamed “Operation Rotem,” when Egypt had made a similar show of force in Sinai. However, as prime minister and defense minister, Ben-Gurion had decided to avoid any steps that might have escalated the crisis. Simultaneously, he coordinated political moves with the American administration to reduce tension. In this case, diplomacy succeeded: the crisis cooled down and Nasser brought his troops back to Egypt. In the summer of 1967, a similar chain of events appeared, and Ben-Gurion again pondered Nasser’s real motives and intentions for the troop concentration in Sinai and blockade of the straits. He had no intention of being carried away by official assessments of the situation that attributed these acts to Nasser’s willingness to confront Israel on the battlefield. Ben-Gurion’s “own” evaluation seemed to make allowances for Nasser. In this way, he continued to hold the opinions of experts and professionals’ evaluations in abeyance just as he did when he served as prime minister and defense minister. In inner party debates, Ben-Gurion continued to criticize the official government position even though he was well aware that the government had won wall-to-wall public and political support when it declared that the closure of the Straits of Tiran was an act of belligerency. When the highly popular politically oriented poet, Nathan Alterman, agreed with the government’s stand, Ben-Gurion retorted: “You are wrong; this [the closure of the straits] is not war.” This view was obviously a departure from the broad consensus of opinion that only a politician of Ben-Gurion’s stature, who was completely free of narrow political strictures and personal considerations, could allow himself to express.13 Ben-Gurion’s adoption of this position seemed to imply that Nasser was blind to the dire consequences he faced by having blockaded the straits. BenGurion may have thought that Nasser simply failed to comprehend the full significance of Israel’s perception of this move: “[Nasser] did not realize that blocking [our] freedom of navigation would lead to war.” It is unclear what Ben-Gurion exactly meant by this. Nasser must have been perfectly aware of the severe blow to Israel’s credibility and deterrence if it acquiesced to the blockade. Ben-Gurion may have been referring to Egypt’s unawareness of the economic ramifications of the straits’ closure, especially Israel’s near-total dependency on oil from Iran via the Red Sea. Whatever the case, Ben-Gurion summed up the situation: “If we stand firm and are cautious, no serious clash will follow. But I can’t say if this depends on us alone.”14 On May 26, Peres told Ben-Gurion that he believed war would begin that day with an IDF attack on the Egyptians. The Old Man was extremely dissatisfied with this news. He figured that Nasser would cease his instigations because the blockade was sufficient to bolster his status. Ben-Gurion also remembered that following the Sinai Campaign Nasser had prohibited armed infiltration from the Gaza Strip. The great unknown at this point was the Israeli government. Ben-Gurion was uncertain how it would deal with the events. He knew that the army was prepared for war and maybe
98 Ben-Gurion confronts the war even eager for a fight. But he was unable to assess the power struggle at the top level of the political-security establishment since he no longer knew who had the decisive voice there. In light of the uncertainty over the government’s intentions and the differences of opinion among the decision makers, Ben-Gurion requested an urgent meeting with Dayan (now a general in the reserves), who was inspecting IDF units in the south. Ben-Gurion undoubtedly wished to obtain accurate information on the balance of power and various orientations inside the national leadership. The Old Man’s aides had a hard time finding Dayan. Around noontime, Dayan called Ben-Gurion from Beer Sheva and suggested that they meet there, on condition that Rabin gave his approval of the meeting. During their meeting Dayan confirmed Peres’s earlier situation evaluation; that is, Ben-Gurion learned that the IDF had been ordered to assault the Gaza Strip that the morning but the order was cancelled.15 At this point, Dayan established, perhaps unconsciously, a pattern in his relationship with the Old Man. Despite Ben-Gurion’s prestige, age, and experience, he had been forced to travel to the south to talk with Dayan. Dayan gave his former patron no leeway, putting him “right in his place.” Ben-Gurion probably paid little heed at this point to games of status. He seems to have been totally involved in the crisis and nonmilitary measures to solve it. He was worried about the steps the government had taken so far, and he still had deep qualms over the initiation of military action without advance coordination with Western governments. On May 26, he penned the following diary entry: This is a difficult test – one that [Israel] has never faced before. Our task is to open the straits [to Israeli navigation]. But we [should] take action only after gaining the consent of friendly states. Opening the straits by force will lead to war. Without securing the support and understanding of the Western world [so as to guarantee] additional arms – we will fail. Egypt’s army is stronger than ever. [We have to be prepared for] a confrontation with all of the Arab armies. We will lose men and equipment. The Egyptians will also suffer. [But unlike us, the Egyptians] have no reservations over losing men. [We also have to take into account that the Egyptians] will receive all the weapons they need from Russia. Without assurances of arms from America, England, or France it will be the end [of Israel]. We have to be realistic. Our army is magnificent. But today [it is impossible] to fight the way David fought Goliath.16 Dayan’s autobiography, Story of My Life, depicts Ben-Gurion’s position as reflecting the tactical steps he felt Israel had to take during the waiting period. According to this version, Ben-Gurion’s warning against going to war was only provisional. After Israel carried out a number of political-strategic
Ben-Gurion confronts the war 99 steps, nothing would prevent it from initiating hostilities at the right time. Israel would have gained a strategically secure rear and staved off accusations of aggression and belligerency. Dayan wrote, Ben-Gurion was tense. He regarded the situation as very grave. If we attack now, the whole world will be against us and we will receive no assistance. In his opinion, we have to: 1. Clarify the situation thoroughly with the United States, England, and France so that they understand our position and will be prepared to assist us with arms in order to safeguard our rights. 2. Following this – launch an aerial attack on Sharm al-Sheikh. Nasser will react, full-scale war will ensue, but we will not be labeled the aggressor, and will be able to receive arms from the West. 3. Inform the Western countries that we desire their assistance in arms supplies but we do not want them to fight for us.17 According to Dayan, Ben-Gurion did not believe that Nasser would initiate an attack at present since he gained what he wanted at Tiran – self-aggrandizement in the Arab world. Ben-Gurion was eager to visit the Southern Command’s headquarters. He called Rabin to ask for permission. Rabin was in a quandary. On the one hand, he definitely did not want the Old Man spreading his views in the army; on the other hand, it was difficult to refuse Ben-Gurion’s request. After all, Ben-Gurion had founded the IDF and had played a dominant part in his (Rabin’s) appointment to chief of staff. Rabin answered diplomatically: “I won’t say no.” Ben-Gurion was experienced enough to comprehend that Rabin opposed the visit, and disciplined enough to inform Rabin that he would not go. As for the timing of the attack, he did not change his opinion. When Dayan told him that the air force was convinced that without a preemptive strike, Israel would lose its strength, Ben-Gurion replied that this was the correct military approach, but political considerations were preferable. “If we attack now – it will be a disaster.”18 Shimon Peres, Ben-Gurion’s close associate and confidant, in this period at least, also strongly opposed an Israeli-initiated strike. Despite the proximity of their views, Peres seems to have gone further than Ben-Gurion; that is, while the Old Man believed that Israel had to coordinate its moves with the Great Powers before taking action, Peres appears to have had more general reservations over an Israeli-initiated attack. When Rafi leaders met on May 21, Peres outlined the situation as he saw it and explained his reservations. The Egyptians were apparently coordinating their steps with the Soviet Union. This meant that Israel had to be extremely careful in handling the crisis.19 By late May, as Nasser’s provocations increased, Ben-Gurion seems to have considered an Israeli initiative against Egypt. At a Rafi meeting in the Knesset on May 29, he sounded more bellicose than ever. Although he was not eager for a fight, his assessment of the situation gives the impression
100 Ben-Gurion confronts the war that Israel had no option but to use force. This was especially true following Foreign Minister Eban’s mission to Western capitals and talks with President Johnson on May 26. Ben-Gurion must have realized that even if Johnson was seriously inclined to protect free navigation in the Straits of Tiran, it was very doubtful whether the American president would take steps to see this through in the immediate future. Interestingly, in Eshkol’s June 8 speech before members of Mapai’s Secretariat, he confirmed Ben-Gurion’s evaluation regarding the unreliability of Washington’s promise to ensure Israeli shipping in the Gulf of Eilat: “It was not by chance that Eban went to the United States,” he stated, President Johnson said they needed two weeks to establish an international maritime force that would open the Straits of Tiran. A week went by, and we looked with a magnifying glass and beating heart to see what was happening . . . if any progress was being made. Was it getting closer? Some days there seemed to be progress, other days it was in retreat. Then [we heard] that 40–50 nations had been asked to sign the famous contract [supporting free navigation in the Gulf of Eilat and expressing willingness to undertake measures that would ensure the freedom of navigation through the straits]. When we checked on the forty–fifty states, it turned out that there were only a dozen or so [countries that seemed serious about their commitment], and even they were wavering. Later [we heard] that several states were willing to supply escort vessels. Even Canada and Australia. [But] in the end there were only two countries, perhaps only one. Two, if we take the United States into consideration, the second was Israel – that may have joined in sending a ship. In the end Johnson would have probably quit the game since he has global problems, and immense global interests.20 In the same meeting Ben-Gurion also said that Israel could not count on the Western powers to take any forceful measures to ensure its maritime rights. In the end, Israel would have to act on its own, otherwise a new reality would emerge, one that Israel would find extremely difficult to change. The present blockade of the straits has heightened Nasser’s prestige, but if the closure becomes an established fact, his strength would soar. Ben-Gurion warned against expecting American intervention to open the straits. His statements imply that his objection to an Israeli-initiated strike was a tactical move, and that he considered the timing of the proposed attack inappropriate. He warned his colleagues: Abba Eban [who had returned the previous day] may have to wait two weeks or a [as long as a] year [until an international force will be operational]. A long wait means accepting [the new reality of Egyptian deployment in Sinai and the blockade of the straits]. America and England don’t need the straits, [they need] only the Suez [Canal].
Ben-Gurion confronts the war 101 England will not act unilaterally [to open the straits] . . . Although Johnson has made it perfectly clear [that America is committed to guaranteeing Israeli shipping], [but] words are one thing and deeds another . . . [The United States and Britain] do not consider the closure of the straits a [declaration of] war against Israel . . . Johnson also has to consider public opinion, the military, and both Houses of Congress. We may have to resort to force. Nasser has shut [the straits to our shipping]; we will open [them] by force. I do not believe this will be considered an act of war.21 On several occasions Ben-Gurion voiced his concern over an immediate Israeli move. On one occasion, he asserted that the timing was of crucial importance but the right circumstances had not arrived yet. On May 27, BenGurion met with members of the right-wing party, Herut, and with the Liberal Party. He repeated his view that a military strike against the blockade should take place only after the Western Powers had given their consent and guaranteed Israel of a weapons supply: “What should we do,” Ben-Gurion asked? [We may] assume that we’ll have to liberate the Straits of Eilat [only] after [we provide] sufficient explanations to the leaders of America, England, and France that we understand that this will force Nasser to war with us, and that they [the Western Powers] will have to supply us with arms for those we lose in the fighting, since Egypt and Syria are protected by Russia. No one contradicted me.22 On May 28 Ben-Gurion received a report from Peres that two hundred thousand Israeli reservists had been called up. Although he doubted the credibility of this figure, the Old Man laconically summed up his view of Israel’s escalation of the crisis: “Madness!” When Rafi held a meeting at Ben-Gurion’s home on June 1, the Old Man stated categorically: “I don’t know how things will turn out with Nasser. I’m opposed to our launching an attack tomorrow or the day after.” Ben-Gurion apparently retained this view until the outbreak of hostilities. In the June 4 cabinet meeting, one of the more moderate cabinet ministers, Moshe Shapira, announced that he was in favor of war. But he also revealed that when he spoke with Ben-Gurion, the Old Man had objected to a military initiative.23 On June 4 the cabinet passed the following resolution: The Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian armies are prepared to launch an immediate multi-front attack that will threaten the survival of the state. The government has decided to take military action in order to lift the siege on Israel and preempt the impending attack of the forces of the Joint Arab Command. The government authorizes the Prime Minister and the Defense Minister to grant the Chief of Staff the approval for the timing of the operation. Members of Government will be informed shortly of the operation’s stages.24
102 Ben-Gurion confronts the war In practical terms, the resolution stated that a military campaign would commence the next day. Ben-Gurion received the report of the government decision. According to Haim Yisraeli, the assistant defense minister, Dayan asked him [Yisraeli] to inform Ben-Gurion about the intended attack but not to mention its precise timing. Apparently Dayan doubted Ben-Gurion’s ability to keep the secret. Upon hearing this Ben-Gurion expressed his disappointment over the fateful decision: “I fail to understand the hastiness involved,” he noted in his diary, “Would it not have been wiser to consult first [with the Western Powers]?”25 On the morning of June 5, he learned that war had broken out. He wrote in his diary: “Dayan has sent a high-ranking officer to inform me that operations have commenced. [But] there was no need to [send him]. At the start of the hostilities there was a shrill siren throughout the country. Everybody knew that war had begun . . . The [initiation of hostilities] is a serious mistake. They [government ministers] should have told Washington and London that we would commence operations if [they failed to] open the straits.” At 10:30 a.m. the former Chief of Staff, Zvi Tzur, told Ben-Gurion about the preliminary results of the air strike – 137 Egyptian aircraft had been destroyed on the ground.26 At noon the same day Ben-Gurion met with Knesset Members Peres and Yosef Almogi. It was apparent that the air strike had been a near-total success and the war had already been decided in Israel’s favor. Nonetheless, Ben-Gurion repeated his reservations over the military moves taken that day: “The deed is done,” he told Peres, “but I do not think they should have started the war without first speaking with England and America and explaining to them why we had to fight.” Peres calmed him and informed him (his basis of information is not clear) that “coordination [with the Western Powers] had been carried out.”27 The White House was apparently taken completely by surprise. On June 4, one day before the war broke out, Johnson sent a message to Nasser emphasizing his administration’s intention to continue trying to solve the crisis by political means. In this spirit, he invited the Egyptian Vice President, Zakariya Muhyi ad-Din to visit the United States at the earliest possible date. Johnson also mentioned his plan to dispatch a senior administration official to Egypt, most likely Vice President Hubert Humphrey. The wording of the message clearly indicates that Johnson felt there was still time for diplomatic efforts.28 Ben-Gurion’s overriding concern about hasty militant moves in the immediate pre-Six-Day War period corresponded with his general outlook. It expressed the same cautious and restrained view that he showed throughout his political career. The concept was based on two main elements: 1. The realization that the use of military force always entails risks, in that a state can never be sure of its victory – even if in theory it has a clear military superiority. 2. Recognition of the severe limitations of military
Ben-Gurion confronts the war 103 force in general, and in the Israeli–Arab case in particular. In other words, victory on the battlefield does not ipso facto solve the problems that led to war, and may even spawn greater ones. Ben-Gurion’s objection to military initiatives before the outbreak of hostilities was also based on his grave doubts about the IDF’s readiness for war, though he generally preferred not to go into details on the matter. Some Rafi members, especially Dayan and Peres, were highly critical of the IDF’s arms acquisition policy in this period, particularly that of the air force. Ben-Gurion must have been aware of this criticism. He was certainly worried about the balance of conventional weapons between Israel and the Arab states though he generally trained his criticism on other aspects of the security policy – mainly the development of the nuclear option. These concerns fed his anxiety that an Israeli military victory was far from being guaranteed. He held to his gloomy assessment of an Arab–Israeli confrontation even though people close to him, like Peres and Dayan, who were regularly updated on the strength of the Israeli army, gave more reassuring reports. At a meeting of the Rafi faction on May 21, Dayan said, “According to Shimon [Peres] the IDF is now very strong. There has been an enormous development in the armoured corps. If Nasser attacks he’ll be thoroughly beaten.” Dayan also added his own evaluation: “If Israel and Egypt clash . . . I think the IDF is strong enough to thrash Egypt . . . As for operations [the IDF’s operational abilities], I believe the IDF is powerful and will gain the upper hand.” Former Chief of Staff Zvi Zur was at the same meeting and asserted, Militarily, our situation is better than ever . . . [thanks to] the aggregate of organization, training, etc. The IDF’s capability is very good today and the balance of power has not worsened despite the Arabs’ arms procurement. Looking at the Egyptian sector, following the recent mobilization, the number of our men and tanks is not less than what [faces them] in Sinai.29 Another factor that must have caused Ben-Gurion endless worry was Egypt’s non-conventional capability. In the period prior to the outbreak of the war, information and evaluations abounded that the Egyptian army had been supplied with non-conventional weapons. Although circles in the Israeli intelligence establishment tended to question the credibility of these reports, they could not completely discount them. Furthermore, the Israeli intelligence community’s failure to foresee the approaching crisis probably enhanced the concern that, despite the sanguine estimates of Egypt’s poor showing in developing a non-conventional capability, the situation was in fact different, and Egypt had managed to conceal from Israel and the West far-reaching accomplishments in this sensitive area. The brazen provocations and excessive confidence that Nasser and the Egyptian leadership displayed during the crisis also probably heightened
104 Ben-Gurion confronts the war suspicion in Israel and the Western Powers, that maybe there was justification for the Egyptian president’s bragging, and that he did possess weapons of mass destruction. No official agency could rule out this scenario. For BenGurion and many other Israelis who were not routinely updated with intelligence data, these fears were perhaps more tangible. This is illustrated in Ben-Gurion’s conversation with Moshe Dayan during the May 21 Rafi meeting in the Knesset: Ben-Gurion: Dayan:
What [will happen] if [Nasser] launches a missile attack? What are missiles? They’re only [artillery] shells. I assume it won’t be armed with a nuclear warhead. Ben-Gurion: A few years ago [Nasser] bragged that he could [reach every point [south of Beirut with his missiles]. Dayan: If it’s armed with a conventional warhead, then it’s [just] a bomb.30 To sum up, Ben-Gurion was grimly uncertain about Israel’s military superiority. His foreboding that the war would escalate beyond the Egyptian front to other Arab states added to his anxiety about Israel’s ability to meet the confrontation. He foresaw a lengthy and bloody campaign that would claim many victims on the Israeli side and probably be accompanied with a staggering attack on the civilian population. The war would have debilitating effect on the IDF’s strength and require a massive, rapid arms supply from the Western Powers. Since Israel had failed to coordinate its steps with them – it was doubtful whether they would grant this aid. Under these circumstances, Israel’s survival would be in jeopardy. At a Rafi meeting on May 29 Ben-Gurion stated this explicitly, “There is a real danger of destruction. I don’t know whether it can be avoided.”31 Another cause for concern that cost Ben-Gurion many a sleepless night was Soviet intervention if the war turned in Israel’s favor. This would also explain the Old Man’s exhortations to reach an understanding with the Western Powers before embarking on military operations, so as to neutralize the possibility of Soviet involvement. These fears magnified during the war when the IDF turned its guns on Syria, a major Soviet ally. It should be recalled that from the time Ben-Gurion served as defense minister during the War of Independence, he repeatedly warned against a military confrontation with a superpower. This issue became an ironclad principle not to be deviated from under any circumstances. Some of his most crucial decisions during the War of Independence and the Sinai Campaign stemmed from his deepest concern over such a confrontation. After the Sinai Campaign he declared: For years the planning of our army was [designed to enable] it to face any Arab army or all of the Arab armies. But I insisted on the principle that we would never send our forces against a non-Arab army . . . I have
Ben-Gurion confronts the war 105 advised other defense ministers to maintain this principle: That God forbid, they should get the IDF embroiled in a military clash with a non-Arab army.32 Another reason for Ben-Gurion’s position may be attributed to his belief that acts of belligerency by Israel could damage its efforts to safeguard its nuclear option. He must have taken this factor into consideration while planning for Israel’s future security, and feared that physical damage to the Dimona nuclear reactor would incapacitate it. Ben-Gurion may have feared that even if Egypt failed to actually hit the reactor, the attempt would be sufficient to rekindle the international inspection issue. As an Egyptian air strike loomed on the horizon, Israel’s nuclear development was liable to return to the center of international debate. If this happened, and Egypt tried to destroy the reactor from the air, there would be an international outcry for tighter monitoring of Israel’s nuclear activity, even if the Egyptian attack failed. This could lead to the neutralization of the Dimona Project just as it was reaching a high level of “productiveness.” This matter had been the source of ongoing tension between Israel and the United States beginning in late 1961 when the reactor’s existence was revealed.33 Finally, Ben-Gurion may have underscored the need for coordination with the Western Powers in order to ensure that the victory would achieve tangible political gains. He had piloted Israel through two wars – the War of Independence and the Sinai Campaign – and had witnessed the political leadership assailed with bitter reproach for missing the opportunity to obtain vital political goals. In both cases, one of the chief reasons for the limited political fruits was the lack of Great Power support, especially from the United States. The prospect of allowing cardinal political gains slip away again caused Ben-Gurion intolerable concern even as the astounding dimensions of the military victory became evident.
8
Ben-Gurion’s involvement in the war
Mixture of joy and frustrations Ben-Gurion arrived at the Israeli Air Force’s (IAF) “pit” at GHQ in the late morning hours of June 5. He was invited because of his special status as the former prime minister and defense minister who had led his country in its most critical hours. Entry into the “pit” required the highest level of authorization. Therefore, his presence must have aroused some consternation. On hand were Generals Moshe Dayan, Yigael Yadin, Mordechai Hod, and Ezer Weizman. No one had any idea how much information on the progress of the fighting Ben-Gurion should receive. Nevertheless, he was immediately handed a detailed report of the air strikes against Egypt. He must have been jarred by the news. All his anxieties and warnings about the possible catastrophe of a preemptive strike by Israel were suddenly proven incorrect. The IAF blitzkrieg vindicated the proponents of a first strike, namely the IDF high command, as well as Dayan. Ben-Gurion probably suffered several moments of disorientation. For years he had exemplified the stalwart leader during periods of extreme trial. Now, when he was removed from the national leadership, he expressed greater apprehension and caution than in the past. His diary omits any hint of his disconcertment. He seems to have quickly accepted the facts and adjusted to the astounding circumstances. From the first day of the war his daily journal reflects euphoria over the unfolding events. As soon as the results of the air strikes in Egypt and Syria became known, his mood soared: Our Air Force’s victory may be unsurpassed in world [history]. We destroyed 362 Arab planes, mostly Egyptian. We bombed almost all of the airfields in Egypt and Syria. We’ve captured Khan Yunis and Rafah [cities in the Gaza Strip]. Only the Jordanians are still putting up resistance. Egypt and Syria are defeated. Moshe [Dayan] still refrains from publicizing our achievements.1 Although Ben-Gurion tried to temper his emotions, like the rest of leaders and the entire nation he was swept up in the outburst of euphoria that
Ben-Gurion’s involvement in the war 107 overtook the country. He intended to go to the Knesset that day, but when he realized that the “center of events” was in Tel-Aviv where the Defense Ministry and GHQ were located, he decided to remain in Tel-Aviv. Also, in Tel-Aviv he could be in the company of the “security chiefs” with whom he was personally acquainted and several of whom still held him in esteem. On the other hand, many politicians were among his foes, and in whose presence he certainly felt less relaxed. But Ben-Gurion, as his custom, tended to keep his feelings to himself. His readers are not told that he wanted to remain in Tel-Aviv. He prefers to relate that he was “advised” to stay there. “The Knesset session was supposed to convene at four o’clock, but has been postponed till six-thirty. Moshe [Dayan] will go there to be sworn in and then return immediately. I’ve been advised not to go at all.”2 Ben-Gurion was still reeling from the sense of triumph when he wrote to an old friend, Yosef Weitz, comparing his present emotions to those he felt when he declared statehood on May 14, 1948. He believed that the jubilation of June 1967 was greater than on the day the country gained independence and could only be compared to the day he immigrated to Eretz Israel. You’re wrong if you think that I’ve forgotten the day of Israel’s rebirth or the significance of its restoration. On May 14, 1948 I was completely absorbed by one issue: how to overcome the daunting challenge of an invasion by Arab armies. After I left the Tel Aviv museum where statehood was declared, I saw people dancing in the streets. But I didn’t partake in the celebrations and rejoicing because I was overcome by one bitter concern: how to defeat our enemies. But last week I was filled with joy – even that is not the right word to describe the height of exhilaration that pervaded my whole being because of the IDF’s dazzling swift victory. I felt a similar emotional experience only [one other time in my life] on the first night of my arrival in Petah Tikva when I heard the wail of jackals and braying of donkeys and sensed that I had returned to our nation’s rejuvenating homeland and I was no longer in the Diaspora’s exile.3 That evening, he traveled to Jerusalem in the company of Defense Minister Dayan and Rafi MK Yosef Almogi to attend the Knesset meeting. After a short debate he returned to Tel-Aviv and he continued to receive updates from the fronts. The following morning he was given a situation report from Assistant Defense Minister Haim Yisraeli stating that the IDF was advancing in Sinai and that the Old City of Jerusalem was under assault. In the north, Yisraeli continued, the Syrians were in a panic, but “for the time being [Dayan] is leaving them alone in order to smash them later.” In a surprising shift from his previously cautious stance, Ben-Gurion disagreed with this tactic: “In the meantime the settlements [in the north] are suffering [from Syrian shelling] and must be defended.”4 On the morning of June 6, he received a detailed situation report from a former chief of staff, Zvi Tzur: “Jerusalem is surrounded,” Tzur told him,
108 Ben-Gurion’s involvement in the war but Dayan “had ordered [the troops] not to enter the city.” Tzur thought that, “The West Bank would be in our hands today.” He told Ben-Gurion that the Egyptians were urging the Syrians to shell the border settlements because the Syrians “had done practically nothing” yesterday. President Nasser had asked the Russians to arrange a ceasefire but the United States had other interests. The Americans want us to “take out Nasser quickly.” Tzur believed that “tomorrow we’ll complete [the conquest of] Jordan (the West Bank) and Sinai.”5 On the morning of June 7, Ben-Gurion met with Joseph Sapir, a Gahal minister in the just formed National Unity Government. Sapir wanted to know Ben-Gurion’s position on the Old City and the West Bank. Ben-Gurion presented an extremely hard-line stand regarding Israel’s military operations on the Jordanian and Syrian fronts: I told him [Sapir] that we have to speed up the pace of victory . . . and win on all fronts. We have to strike Syria a mortal blow because of what they did to our settlements yesterday even though it was due to Nasser’s pressure. Ben-Gurion would soon reverse his position on this point.6 On June 8, the country’s leaders consulted feverishly regarding action against Syria. Serious considerations, some widely divergent, were broached. The government hesitated before moving against Syria and capturing the Golan Heights. Eshkol shared his doubts with Mapai members over the government’s Syrian policy: We still have a few more things [to do] that are not secret . . . The Banias springs are Syrian. The Jordan [River] is fed from the Banias, Hatzbani and Dan [Rivers]. Lebanon has enough water. The Banias is a kilometer and a half from our border. Syria is giving us a hard time. Perhaps the hour has come [to teach it a lesson] . . . This issue is being discussed, pending a solution. Today I received a telephone call from a friend in the north, from one of the northern settlements, and he said: “I’m speaking for all of the settlements. We’re being shelled day and night by artillery from the Golan Heights. We want you to know that we’re no less important than the Old City.” . . . In last war Syria got off better than the others. At present the same thing is happening, although it was [Syria] that lit the fire. [And now they] will be able to boast: “Look how we’ve come out of the whole affair [without a scratch].”7 On the morning of June 9, Ben-Gurion heard on the Voice of Israel that Syria agreed to the Security Council resolution for a ceasefire. He knew that the fighting in the north was still in progress and he expressed his vigorous displeasure with this situation. His position on military operations was very inconsistent. He probably felt that Syria had to be thrashed, but he was torn
Ben-Gurion’s involvement in the war 109 between this wish and his anxiety over the outcome of such a dangerous move. He feared that Israel’s invasion after Syria had consented to a ceasefire would tarnish Israel’s image as a peace-seeking country that had recourse to its military arm only when confronted with a tangible threat. Ben-Gurion was naturally very troubled by the possibility of direct Soviet intervention to protect its chief ally in the Middle East.8 Bearing in mind Ben-Gurion’s “traditional” strategic thinking, his position on an offensive against Syria appears rather strange. He always claimed that in the hostile conditions of the Middle East, Israel was not obliged “to wait” to be attacked in order to justify its response. Based on this concept he had approved of military moves during the War of Independence that went beyond mere self-defense. In the same vein he brushed aside criticism of the Kinneret Operation (December 1955) when it was claimed that Israel’s military action against Syria had been unprovoked. After he received identical reports from different sources on Israeli operations in the north, he phoned Dayan and asked, “Why aren’t we beating the daylights out of the Syrians?” Dayan replied that Israel had deployed a large force in the north but the Syrians were putting up a stiff fight. BenGurion wanted to know who was responsible for violating the ceasefire that Syria had agreed to. The entry in Ben-Gurion’s diary notes: “[Dayan] preferred not to answer.” It is hard to say whether Dayan’s reticence stemmed from apprehension that the line was tapped or his reluctance to provide Ben-Gurion with ultrasensitive information. Either way, the Old Man understood that Israel was responsible for resuming combat operations: “This answer was sufficient.” That evening, Zvi Tzur came by for a second time and explained that the question of seizing the Golan Heights had been discussed yesterday. Dayan had objected to the move, but the next day he changed his mind.9 This information was very vexatious to Ben-Gurion because it meant that Israel had initiated the renewal of hostilities. For this reason, he changed his position. He believed that prolonged fighting with the Syrians was a serious mistake and a grave danger because of the Soviet threat. Moreover, even if Israel occupied the heights it would not remain there for long. This was the backdrop to his diary entry of June 9: It was a big mistake not to maintain the ceasefire with Syria. We don’t need the [Golan] Heights because we won’t be staying there. The main error [was] our needless violation of the Security Council resolution. We’ll [soon] be struggling for more important things and our enemies don’t have to know that we broke our word. We agreed to the ceasefire and then resumed the fighting even though it was not crucial for us and is liable to damage our good name and [endanger] the settlements in the north.10 The Soviet Union’s decision to sever diplomatic relations with Israel confirmed Ben-Gurion’s earlier qualms: “This [rupture] is the result of the
110 Ben-Gurion’s involvement in the war unnecessary continuation of the fighting in Syria. We cannot deceive the whole world.”11 According to recently declassified files, the Soviet Union sent a sharp warning to Israel on June 8 not to initiate hostilities against Syria. The Soviet Ambassador to Israel, Dimitry Chuvakhin, handed the message to the West German Ambassador to Israel. In a conversation between the two, Chuvakhin stated that the Soviet Union warned Israel after it resumed its attack against Syria, “If Israel continues to be drunk with success and proceeds with its aggression, then the future of this little country will be very sad.” The West Germans assessed that if the Russians concluded that Israel intended to overthrow the Syrian regime, they were likely to take direct action to obstruct the move. Ben-Gurion may have been informed of the Soviet warning.12 On the afternoon of June 10, Dayan met with the chief UN observer General Odd Bull. Dayan made clear that Israel would comply with any arrangement that Bull proposed regarding the Security Council decision for a ceasefire and supervision of the truce. Dayan also pointed out that such an arrangement would have nothing to do with the General Armistice Agreements but with the modus operandi for respecting the Security Council decision. He also stressed that the arrangement would have to be mutual. From Israel’s point of view, Dayan emphasized, the ceasefire could go into effect “within five minutes.” In any case, Israel was willing to accept any timeframe that Bull suggested and the Syrians agreed to. Israel would provide the UN observers with the technical assistance needed to facilitate the supervision of the ceasefire.13 At the Rafi Secretariat meeting on June 11, Ben-Gurion expressed his opposition to the belligerency toward Syria after the ceasefire had been attained. During the meeting, Peres handed the Old Man a secret message admonishing: “Read and destroy.” Peres’s note detailed the decision making involved in taking the Golan Heights: On Thursday [June 8, 1967], following the ceasefire, the Ministerial Committee for Security Affairs discussed the Syrian issue. I believe that all the ministers agreed that Syria had to be attacked and the Golan Heights captured. Moshe Dayan, fearing the Russian reaction and cost in lives, was opposed to such a move. It was left to the prime minister and defense minister to decide according to the circumstances. The next morning, Friday, Moshe [Dayan] changed his mind, and ordered the CO Northern Command [Maj. Gen. David Elazar] to ascend [assault] the heights. After a fifteen minute delay he informed Eshkol about this [decision]. Eshkol agreed to the plan but was angry at the way [it had been decided].14
Ben-Gurion and the strengthening of the war’s gains When the extent of Israel’s military victory became known, Ben-Gurion was among the few who realized its potential negative implications for Israel.
Ben-Gurion’s involvement in the war 111 He was particularly concerned over the demographic consequences in annexing a large Arab population. As early as the second day of the war he jotted down in his diary: We cannot forget that there are approximately one million Arabs in the West Bank. The last thing we need is to add them to the Arab [population] of Israel. There are also about two hundred thousand refugees in the Gaza Strip and it will not be easy to get rid of them. However, we will [solve] these problems after we successfully conclude our victory on all fronts.15 Ben-Gurion’s fears of the “demographic problem” were shared by other Israeli statesmen as well. In a speech before the Mapai Secretariat, Prime Minister Eshkol expressed his deep concern: We control an area that includes the Gaza Strip with a million or 1.2 million Arabs. We have only recently become aware of the deplorable state of immigration [to Israel] that has diminished or come to a halt, and the low birthrate among the European (Ashkenazi) Jewish population. If the good Lord had not blessed the Jews from Islamic countries with many children, who knows where we would be today. But [now], 1.2 million Arabs have come [under our control] and their birthrate is not low. This is a serious problem that we’ll have to rack our brains trying to solve . . . We’ll have to deal with the question of living in Israel without giving back what we’ve captured and how to live with such a number of non-Jews.16 Golda Meir expressed similar concern. A few months after the war, at a meeting of the Mapai Secretariat, she recalled that she had asked Eshkol, “What are we going to do with a million Arabs?” and he had answered, “I see that you like the dowry but not the bride.” Golda Meir nodded in agreement: But, did you ever see anyone get a dowry without a bride? A bride without a dowry – we’ve seen. But a dowry without a bride? Everybody wants that. He’d love the dowry and for someone else to get the bride. But the two are inseparable.17 However, Ben-Gurion’s immediate interest was on the urgent need to ensure Israel’s sovereignty in the Old City, rather than on long-term demographic dangers. His handling of the Jerusalem issue is a mixture of religious-national vision and pragmatism. Although he was no longer a part of the leadership elite, he endeavored to give the impression that he was still in charge and that his views had to be taken into consideration. On the second day of the war, he went to Jerusalem to speak with the mayor, Teddy Kollek, and the minister of the Interior, Moshe Shapira,
112 Ben-Gurion’s involvement in the war about, “the renewal of the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem and filling the empty [Arab] houses with Jews.” He was disappointed to learn that the minister was in a meeting in Tel-Aviv, and could not meet with him. He conversed with Kollek and made an appointment to see Shapira the next day: “I spoke with Teddy and stressed the urgency of action. Kollek promised to bring the matter to the prime minister’s attention.”18 Apparently this answer did not satisfy Ben-Gurion. Eshkol reported to the Mapai Secretariat on June 7 that Kollek had seen him along with Mordechai Ish-Shalom (former mayor of Jerusalem) and informed him that they had plans that required a quarter of a billion Israeli pounds for renovating Jerusalem and moving Jews into the Old City. Ben-Gurion was displeased with the artificial separation between the “Old” and “New” City. “I said nothing about the Old City and the New City,” he noted in his diary, “I spoke about ‘the internal city.’ I have one city, now united – this is Jerusalem.”19 On the morning of June 8, the minister of the interior came to Ben-Gurion’s home in Tel-Aviv. Ben-Gurion immediately voiced his concern that We’ve already lost one day [in the resettling of the Old City] and in these times we cannot waste even a single day. I don’t know if the war is over, and there may be complications in this area too. In any case, we have to strengthen the army’s victories and repopulate the ruins in the Old City’s Jewish Quarter . . . with Jews as quickly as possible. If the Arabs want to return to their houses we’ll give them homes in New Jerusalem.20 Ben-Gurion wanted to speak with Dayan about this matter, but the defense minister was in Jerusalem. The fighting was still raging, and the defense minister stood in the eye of the hurricane and naturally had no time for Ben-Gurion’s obsession regarding the Jewish settlement of the Old City. Ben-Gurion next tried to see his old rival and new ally, Menachem Begin, now a government minister who could “move” things, albeit up to a point. Ben-Gurion wanted to broach a subject that was also close to Begin’s heart – the resettlement of the Old City with Jews. To his chagrin Begin too was unavailable.21 Therefore, the Old Man decided to see things for himself. He traveled to the Old City that day, accompanied by IAF Generals Ezer Weizman and Mordechai Hod. En route he was cheered by the troops. He arrived at the Western Wall and suppressed any display of emotion. He noted in his diary that he was surprised to discover “that from the time the Old City was barred to us [in 1948] the [Jordanians] had erected buildings next to the Western Wall. I was amazed that no order had been issued to demolish these constructions.”22 As he approached the Wall he noticed a sign in Arabic and English announcing that Mohammad and a band of angels had met on this spot.
Ben-Gurion’s involvement in the war 113 Ben-Gurion feared that an Islamic “presence” so close to the Western Wall might bolster the “Arab claim” to Jerusalem. He told a group of soldiers near him that, “the sign had to be erased without damaging the stones of the Wall.” Ben-Gurion still projected authority even though he held no official position. “One of the soldiers immediately picked up a stick and began effacing the sign.”23 That evening Ben-Gurion returned to Tel-Aviv for a session with the Rafi Secretariat. The issue on the agenda was the party’s return to Mapai. However, another issue constantly occupied Ben-Gurion – Jerusalem. He delivered a speech highly critical of the government’s failure to settle the city immediately: We are now in control of Jerusalem and this is one of the greatest events [in our history]. But they [the ministers] do not understand that if we occupy Jerusalem, then something has to be done. One of the first things is to build houses. I felt that I had to speak with the mayor of Jerusalem and someone in the government. I wanted to speak with Begin but couldn’t find him and I tried [meeting] Shapira. I talked to Teddy [Kollek] who said that he’d be meeting with Eshkol and would speak with him [about resettling the Old City]. I asked Shapira to meet me this morning and he realized it was important. I told him that first of all [we have to] establish a presence in Jerusalem, a large Jewish presence. [We have to] populate the Jewish Quarter immediately. If there are empty Arab houses, we have to move Jews into them. The same is true of Hebron. In our days, [the Arabs of] Hebron massacred the Jews there. I am certain that in Israel’s current atmosphere there are [Jews willing to live] there. [But] I don’t see anyone in the government willing to carry this out.24 His diary entry for that day also reflects his frustration over the government’s lack of policy for settling Jerusalem. I do not know if the war is over, but we might lose politically what our army has won for our people. I’m worried about Eban’s activity in the UN. He must be brought back. I fear the government’s indecisiveness in securing our military gains in Jerusalem, Hebron and the West Bank. Rafi members in favor of reuniting [with Mapai] as a means of remedying the situation must speak with Mapai members and find out whether they are prepared to help us ensure that the government secures the army’s achievements.25 On the night of June 8, Ben-Gurion met with a delegation of French public figures, mostly de Gaulle supporters, headed by Edmund Rothschild. The conversation revolved mainly around France’s Israel policy, especially General de Gaulle’s. Ben-Gurion was asked if he was willing to go to France and meet with de Gaulle in order to try to improve French–Israeli relations. However
114 Ben-Gurion’s involvement in the war Ben-Gurion had other matters on his mind. Since his main concern was Jerusalem, he made the best of this opportunity to ask whether his French listeners “being Catholics, would object to the Old City remaining in Israel’s hands.” Some of them, Ben-Gurion noted, “said they were not opposed.”26 Later that night, Ben-Gurion invited Shapira and Begin to his home. Not only did Ben-Gurion forcefully assert his positions, but he also retained his self-assigned status as a leader who beckons ministers to his home. The significance of this is clearly reflected in his diary: “I invited Shapira and Begin to see me.” For the first time Ben-Gurion set forth in the clearest of terms his comprehensive plan for a postwar arrangement, though he refused to go into all the details. Aware of the pressures that were sure to mount, he said: We must not budge from Jerusalem. We have to establish a large Jewish presence inside [East Jerusalem] as quickly as possible. We also have to build a Jewish settlement in Hebron. We must not hand back the West Bank to Hussein even though annexing it to Israel means an addition of million Arabs. This is a grave danger. There is also the problem of the refugees in the Gaza Strip.27 In effect, Ben-Gurion avoided specifying any of his positions except, of course, regarding Jerusalem. He noted that Begin wanted “to transfer the Gaza refugees to El-Arish [northern Sinai] and leave them there.” Ben-Gurion kept silent on this issue but expressed doubt that the refugees would agree to this. Begin naturally demanded Israel’s retention of the entire West Bank. Again, Ben-Gurion left his position hazy and preferred to discuss the political struggle Israel would soon be facing. He reiterated that, “the two men managing the struggle – Eshkol and Eban – were not suited [to the task].”28 However, Ben-Gurion’s attempt to undermine Eshkol’s status was a lost cause. At this point, when triumph was within reach, it is difficult to imagine that any responsible party would support the idea of deposing the prime minister or foreign minister. Indeed, according to Ben-Gurion himself, “From Shapira’s reaction it was clear that he had no wish to resume the struggle against Eshkol. Begin remained silent.”29 On June 11, a small group of Ben-Gurion’s closest supporters – Dayan, Peres, and Almogi – met at his home. Dayan stated his view on the nature of the postwar arrangement: “Gaza’s refugees should be transferred to Jordan; the West Bank should receive autonomy; and Jerusalem should be left in our hands.” Ben-Gurion agreed with these arrangements in principle: I told him [Dayan] that this was roughly my idea too, but that I foresaw problems in transferring the Gaza refugees [to the West Bank]. As for Sinai, I feel we have to insist on direct talks with Egypt. If Nasser consents to peace and free navigation through the Straits of Tiran and Suez Canal, then we’ll have to evacuate the Sinai Peninsula.30
Ben-Gurion’s involvement in the war 115 The next day, Ben-Gurion invited Kollek to his office in the Knesset. The conversation focused on the future of Jerusalem and the steps the government as well as the Jerusalem municipality had to take. Although Ben-Gurion was in a lower executive position than the Jerusalem mayor, he treated Kollek like a subordinate. Ben-Gurion recorded the main points of their parley: I entered the [Knesset] dining hall for a meeting with Teddy. He was half an hour late. I asked him what he had done to settle Jews in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City. He told me that he had razed the buildings built by the Arabs near the Western Wall [and] cleared the way via the Jaffa Gate, but he had not begun settling Jews [in the Old City]. I greatly regretted this and told [him] that he had to move quickly to settle Jews in the Jewish Quarter, in every empty house . . . If the [Arab] residents returned, they would have to be given homes in New Jerusalem. Teddy told me that the Jewish Quarter had not been destroyed. Only the Hurva Synagogue and other synagogues had been leveled [by the Jordanians]. But the Arabs had taken over the Jewish homes in the Jewish Quarter. I said that they must be evacuated. He replied there was still no law [stating] that he was also the mayor of the Old City. I told him that no law was necessary. Occupation was the most effective law.31 Kollek’s answers obviously did not satisfy Ben-Gurion so he decided to take a first hand look at the situation. The next morning, June 13, he asked General Chaim Herzog, who had been appointed governor of the city, to allow him to visit the Old City, Bethlehem, and Hebron. Approval was given and vehicles with a military escort were supplied. Ben-Gurion’s first stop was the Jewish Quarter. He summed up his impressions in the following words: We went first to the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem. It turns out that it was not destroyed but had been occupied by Arabs. In my opinion, it is unsuitable for dwelling [by Jews] and should be leveled and rebuilt. It is hard [to imagine] how people lived here twenty years ago – in holes, narrow cellar[s], and two to three story buildings. I doubt that those [Jews] who lived here [until 1948] would agree nowadays to dwell in such gloomy dirty hovels.32 On the way to the Western Wall, he came upon a “disgraceful sight” as he described it: I saw people facing the wall as though they were urinating. I took a second look at the men standing there and asked what this was all about. I was told that there had been incidents in which the city’s [Arab] population had attacked passers by [apparently Jews on their way to the Western Wall]. [Therefore], they [the Arabs] had been ordered to face the wall while our vehicle passed.
116 Ben-Gurion’s involvement in the war Ben-Gurion was appalled: “It is impossible to shame and humiliate people like that. It degrades us as well.” He also became furious when he saw candles being lit at the Western Wall. He felt that this custom marred the Wall and should be prohibited.33 The convoy proceeded to Mount Scopus where Ben-Gurion visited the buildings of the Hebrew University that had remained an enclave inside the Jordanian sector of Jerusalem after the War of Independence. He continued to Bethlehem and stopped at Rachel’s Tomb. His next destination was the Patriarch’s Tomb in Hebron. He noted that in the past Jews had been allowed to ascend only 7 stairs, whereas now they could go up 30 steps. He spent a long time pondering the burial place of the nation’s forefathers, especially when he heard that Joseph might also be buried there. Throughout his visit to the cave he cited biblical passages. Leaving Hebron he made a brief stop at the Etzion Bloc that had fallen to the Jordanian Legion during the War of Independence.34 Ben-Gurion must have connected the liberation of Jerusalem in the Six-Day War to his disappointment at its division at the end of the War of Independence. For nineteen years he had frequently expressed his deep regret that the Old City and its vicinity had not been captured during the War of Independence. He called this failure “the lament of generations” and blamed Sharett for the mishap. Now, in 1967, his dream had come true. A couple of months after the war, he declared: The IDF’s victory in six magnificent amazing days is no small achievement, but this victory is the culmination of the victory of the fighters in the War of Independence. On June 7, 1967, the Old City and its surroundings were liberated. However, the struggle for Jerusalem did not begin in the Six-Day War.35 On his return to Jerusalem, he sought another conversation with Mayor Kollek. Ben-Gurion gave him explicit directions how to handle Jerusalem’s affairs: The [so called] “houses” in the Jewish Quarter must be razed, the inhabitants evacuated, new buildings constructed and repopulated with Jews. If there are empty houses in other parts of the city – they too must be populated with Jews. If the Arabs are evicted then they must be given houses in New [Jewish] Jerusalem.36 After the Six-Day War, he repeatedly brought up the issue of government activity in Jerusalem. His criticism appears most vitriolic at what he defined as the government’s apathy toward the construction and development of Jerusalem. His statements constitute a fascinating historical account of the immediate postwar, and as such we shall present a few of them verbatim.
Ben-Gurion’s involvement in the war 117 Approximately one month after the war, Ben-Gurion delivered one if his most comprehensive views of the recent events: Regarding Jerusalem, I don’t have to tell you that there is almost total agreement over our keeping the entire city, the new and the old parts of Jerusalem and its environs. No matter what the nations [international community] say. But this is not enough. If we want to hold onto Jerusalem, we cannot forever rely just on our military power. We have to immediately settle close to one hundred thousand Jews in the Old City and [the hills] surrounding Jerusalem, without deporting or evicting a single Arab from Jerusalem . . . [This can be done] by transferring a large part of our university to the place where it was established in 1925 – Mount Scopus . . . We have to establish big industries in the Jerusalem area and bring in Jews from Israel and abroad to settle there. Only then will Jerusalem be truly Jewish.37 In a speech before the Rafi Central Committee a few months after the war, he declared: I am going to sound skeptical, but it is about something that I feel very deep about. If we do not build Jewish settlements in the Old City and Jerusalem area, then I doubt that Old City will remain ours . . . The government has convened, and I’m not saying this as criticism, and passed a resolution that Jerusalem is [a] united [city]. Only one Jerusalem exists and is part of the State of Israel. I am happy about this . . . but it is talk and not action . . . Three and a half months lapsed and nothing has been done. I am very worried and cannot express the depth of my concern that if in the very near future we do not establish Jewish settlements – I’m referring to the Old City and the areas to the north, south and east [of Jerusalem] – then there’s no certainty they’ll remain in our hands . . . I would invest all my energy day and night to do every possible thing to make Jerusalem Jewish . . . We shall not deport the Arabs, we are forbidden to deport even one Arab . . . We have suffered heavy casualties in the battle for Jerusalem. I say we would be desecrating the names of these heroes [if we fail to repopulate Jerusalem with thousands of Jews]. We shall not be able to face their mothers. What did they fight for? What did they sacrifice their lives for? . . . This government profanes the [memory] of the victims when it deals with matters [it considers] more important [than the settlement of Jerusalem].38 In October 1967, Ben-Gurion wrote an article sharply criticizing “the government’s shortcomings” in building up Jerusalem and other areas captured in the Six-Day War: It’s been months since the Six-Day War in which our finest boys gave their lives for Israel’s security and future. Yet a campaign is going on between two trends in Israel’s intelligentsia. On one side are the
118 Ben-Gurion’s involvement in the war “progressives and moralizers” who demand [our] withdrawal from all the territories from which the enemy’s armies fled following their abject defeat in the war they conspired against us. On the other side there are the do-nothing [so-called] trustees of tradition who zealously preach for “Greater Israel.” They are armed with quotations from the Bible and Talmud. They are the most bombastic speakers in our time. They dwell here, but are so disconnected from current events that in reality they don’t dwell among us. The National Unity Government, formed one week before the Six-Day War, stands in the center of this mighty clash in artful neutrality. It has declared that the Old City is now an integral part of Jerusalem [and] the capital of Israel. But this government has done nothing till now to change the status quo in which West Jerusalem is almost totally inhabited by Jews . . . and the Old City . . . by Arabs . . . No real step has been taken to do what should have been done and needs to be done in the Old City and its environs – to set up Jewish neighborhoods inside the Old City and to the north, east, and south of it. Thirty years ago, during British Mandate rule, new settlements were established overnight in the face of the regime. These were the “stockade and tower” settlements that played a major, if not decisive, role in the first attempt to declare statehood . . . Empty patriotic rhetoric . . . will not ensure our moral and historic right to amend the countless injustices that our woeful history has brought upon us during [the centuries of] our exile.39 Nearly seven months after the war, at a gathering of the Hebrew University’s Board of Governors, Ben-Gurion repeated this theme: The grave error made over the last seven months since the liberation of Jerusalem – is that parts of the Hebrew University were not immediately transferred to Mount Scopus, especially the humanities departments that do not require laboratories. It is unnecessary to wait until spacious apartments are built . . . Military victory alone does not secure the fruits of victory. Only the deeds that come in its wake ensure it. Not only the West Bank and Golan Heights are still unsettled but also Jerusalem. Massive settlements encompassing the Old City – in the north, east and south – will safeguard Jerusalem and enhance the university’s prestige in Israel and the world over. Thousands of students and hundreds of professors must be relocated to the Mt. Scopus campus immediately.40
Summary
The events preceding the Six-Day War caught Ben-Gurion, like the majority of Israelis, by surprise. During the waiting period, prior to the hostilities, he paid little attention to daily security issues. It is doubtful that he believed the frequent flare-ups on the northern border would lead to an all-out war in the Middle East. His rare statements on security issues were scathing disapprovals of what he termed “the security blunder.” Although he avoided specifying what he meant, it was clear that he vigorously objected to Eshkol’s policy on the Dimona Project. In the years before the Six-Day War, Ben-Gurion had been totally immersed in a smear campaign against Levi Eshkol – his successor to the offices of prime minister and defense minister. The scholar who traces Ben-Gurion’s positions on this issue finds it difficult to fathom the depth of his hostility, almost abhorrence, toward Eshkol. Many questions surround Ben-Gurion’s impassioned fulminations. We shall mention only a few. Did Ben-Gurion really believe that it was possible to “get to the truth” of the “Lavon Affair?” Was the criticism of Eshkol an expression of his angst at resigning from premiership and ambition at retuning to power? To what extent was his attitude toward Eshkol influenced by his health and old age? When the Six-Day War broke out, Ben-Gurion displayed one of his outstanding leadership skills – the ability to form an independent situation assessment. He did this without any ties to the so-called experts. Especially noteworthy is his evaluation of Nasser’s motives for initiating and handling the crisis. This is all the more remarkable considering Ben-Gurion’s distance from the stream of information on daily security matters. During the waiting period he advised caution and restraint. More than any other political-security figure, he sternly warned against an Israeli preemptive strike against the Arab states, especially Egypt. He opposed this tactic even though it was enthusiastically supported by the IDF high command and members of his own political party who were personally close to him. After Israel’s devastating air strikes, it became clear that he had exaggerated the price Israel would have to pay for initiating military operations. Today
120 Summary however, almost four decades after the dazzling victory of the Six-Day War, a number of questions still linger. Was the total cost of the war, in both the long and short-run, worth it? Would it not have been better to “go the extra mile” and try to reach a political arrangement even at a substantial loss of territorial assets and prestige? In summary, the outbreak of the Six-Day War cannot be separated from Israel’s escalative policy towards Syria in the months which preceded the war. We believe that this policy was chosen in light of Syria’s strident militancy and the fear that the region’s status quo, following the Sinai Campaign, was likely to be disrupted. It should be emphasized that the status quo was of vital interest to Israel and other states in the region. For reasons still not clear (perhaps the military’s last minute reluctance to “go to the edge” or the political level’s unwillingness to back the army’s aggressive plans) the escalation policy fell short of the goal intended by its initiators led by Yitzhak Rabin. In reality, political-security developments turned out completely different from what was anticipated. Syria, that had been the cause of the security deterioration, quit the game on the eve of the war. Egypt and Jordan took its place, probably unintentionally, and both suffered the hardest in Israel’s opening attack. Only in the final stages of the war did Israel, almost unwillingly, decide to storm Syria. In retrospect, when the aftershocks of the SixDay War are still rumbling in the region, a key question remains. If Israel had concentrated its bold, far-reaching escalation policy solely against Syria, could it have halted the deterioration that led to the all-out war?
Notes
1 Ben-Gurion–Eshkol: initial frictions 1 On Ben-Gurion’s resignation see: Ben-Gurion’s Diary (hereafter: BGD), June 16, 1963, Ben-Gurion Archives (hereafter: BGA). 2 BGD, June 16, 1963, BGA. 3 Ben-Gurion’s letter to Golda Meir, January 29, 1969, BGA. 4 Eshkol too was apparently surprised by Ben-Gurion’s resignation. See BGD, June 16, 1963, BGA. 5 BGD, June 17, 1963, BGA. 6 Ibid. 7 Mapai Central Committee, June 18, 1963, Labor Movement Archives (hereafter: LMA). 8 Protocols of Meeting, June 28, 1963, BGA. 9 Ben-Gurion’s letter to Golda, January 29, 1969, BGA. 10 Mapai Political Committee, November 2, 1953, LMA, Beit Berl. 11 BGD, June 19, 1963, BGA. 12 BGD, June 17, 1963, BGA. 13 BGD, June 23, 1963, BGA. 14 Ibid. 15 BGD, July 31, 1963, BGA. 16 BGD, September 26, 1963, BGA. 17 BGD, September 29, 1963, BGA. 18 Ibid. 19 BGD, October 17, 1963 and November 7, 1963, BGA. See also: BGD, January 6, 1964, BGA. 20 BGD, July 31, 1963, BGA. 21 BGD, November 25, 1963, BGA. 22 Ben-Gurion’s letter to Ezer Weizman, Correspondence File, April 27, 1966, BGA. 23 BGD, November 25, 1963, BGA. 24 BGD, January 21, 1964, BGA. 25 BGD, July 31, 1963, BGA. 26 Minutes of meeting between Prime Minister Levi Eshkol and Ari Jabotinsky, March 30–31, 1964, Meetings File, BGA. 27 BGD, March 15, 1964, BGA. 28 BGD, March 16, 1964, BGA. 29 BGD, May 28, 1964, BGA. 30 Ben-Gurion’s letter to Eshkol, October 20, 1964, Unit 15, Galili, Box 143, File 1, Document 7, Yad Tabenkin Archive. 31 See Zaki Shalom, “Sharett’s Resignation from Government (June 1956) – Personal and Political Aspects,” in Hazionut, 20, 1996, pp. 259–289.
122 Notes 2 The Lavon Affair 1 See Special Intelligence Report on the significance of the Suez evacuation, September 20, 1954, File 636/56/30, IDF Archives. 2 See letter from Avraham Dar to Prime Minister Levi Eshkol, December 25, 1967, Israel State Archives (hereafter: ISA). 3 Ibid. 4 Avraham Dar’s letter to Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin, May 30, 1967, File 4096/1, ISA. 5 Avraham Dar’s letter to Meir Amit, August 29, 1967, File 4096/1, ISA. 6 Avraham Dar’s letter to Prime Minister, September 27, 1967, File 4096/1, ISA. 7 Secretary of State Memorandum, March 2, 1961, NND 95937, United States National Archives. 8 BGD, June 30, 1958, BGA. 9 BGD, May 5, 1960, BGA. 10 BGD, October 10, 1960, BGA. 11 BGD, October 6, 1960, BGA. 12 David Ben-Gurion, “The Truth of the Matter,” April 6, 1966, Speeches and Essays File, and BGD, January 1, 1960, BGA. 13 BGD, May 15, 1961, BGA. 14 Prime Minister’s Office Memorandum, February 14, 1965, 6398/3991, ISA. 15 See Ben-Gurion’s speech, May 17, 1966, Speeches and Essays File, BGA. 16 Ibid. 17 Ben-Gurion’s letter to Golda Meir, January 29, 1967, Correspondence File, BGA. 18 BGD, May 5, 1961, BGA. 19 Ben-Gurion’s letter to the editor of Yediot Ahronot, January 6, 1969, Correspondence File, BGA. 20 BGD, November 9, 1964, BGA. 21 BGD, August 12, 1961, BGA. 22 For more information on Sharett’s dismissal, see Zaki Shalom, “Sharett’s Resignation from Government (June 1956) – Personal and Political Aspects,” Hazionut, 20, 1996, pp. 259–289. 23 See Amos Carmel, It’s All politics: A Lexicon of Israeli Politics, Vol. II (Dvir Publications, Tel-Aviv, 2001), p. 707. 24 BGD, August 16, 1961, BGA. 25 Ben-Gurion’s letter to Golda Meir, January 29, 1969, Correspondence File, BGA. 26 BGD, May 12, 1965, BGA. 27 Memorandum, Prime Minister’s Office, February 14, 1965, 6398/3991, ISA. 28 Eshkol’s letter, February 14, 1965 (see n. 39). 29 Eshkol letter to members of Mapai, February 14, 1965, LMA. 30 Ibid. 31 Ibid. 32 Ibid. 33 Letter to Eli Sagi, January 10, 1966, Correspondence File, BGA. 34 K. Shabtai, “I Asked David Ben-Gurion,” Mabat Hadash (a political weekly), October 12, 1966, p. 17. 35 BGD, February 22, 1967, BGA. See also: BGD, September 17, 1965, BGA. 3 The Dimona and Ben-Barka affairs 1 New Outlook, November 22, 1967, p. 2. 2 Eshkol’s speech at Mapai’s Secretariat, June 8, 1967, 2–24–1964–1990, Lavon Archives.
Notes 123 3 Ben-Gurion’s letter to Yehuda Gotthalf, February 25, 1968, Correspondence File, BGA. 4 Ibid. 5 Ben-Gurion’s letter to Yehuda Gotthalf, March 8, 1968, Correspondence File, BGA. 6 See State Department Memorandum, May 30, 1961, NND 989509, Box 1, United States National Archives. 7 The Prime Minister’s meeting with the Editors, March 31, 1963, Minutes File, BGA. 8 Foreign Ministry Memorandum, July 5, 1963, Hetz Aleph/5/7233, ISA. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid. 11 Foreign Ministry Report to Israeli Embassy in the United States, July 8, 1963, 3377/19 Hetz, ISA. 12 Israeli Foreign Ministry Report to Israeli Embassy in United States, July 17, 1963, Hetz Aleph/7233/5, ISA. 13 Foreign Ministry Reports to Israeli Embassy in United States, July 8 and 17, 1963, Hetz Aleph/ 7233/5, ISA. 14 Prime Minister’s Message to President Kennedy, August 19, 1963, Aleph/ 7233/5, ISA. 15 Foreign Ministry Memo, August 27, 1963, 7233/5A, ISA. 16 FRUS 1964–1968, Vol. XVIII, p. 36. 17 Israeli Embassy in the US Report to Foreign Ministry, March 10, 1964, Hetz 3502/11, ISA. 18 Israeli Foreign Ministry Memorandum, March 3, 1964, Hetz 3502/11, ISA. 19 Israeli Embassy in the US Report to Foreign Ministry, March 10, 1964, Hetz 3502/11, ISA. 20 Israeli Foreign Ministry Memorandum, March 3, 1964, Hetz 3501/13, ISA. 21 Israeli Foreign Ministry Memorandum, June 9, 1964, Hetz 5301/13, ISA. State Archives. 22 US State Department Memo, June 2, 1964, NND 969000, Box 181, NA. 23 Israeli Foreign Ministry Memorandum, June 1, 1964, Hetz 5301/13, ISA. State Archives. 24 Ibid. 25 Israeli Foreign Ministry Memorandum, June 2, 1964, Hetz 5301/13, ISA. 26 Ibid. 27 Israeli Foreign Ministry Memorandum, June 9, 1964, Hetz 5301/13, ISA. 28 US Embassy in Israel Report to State Department, February 26, 1965, NND 969000, Box 1650, NA. 29 Israeli Foreign Ministry Memorandum, March 10, 1965, Hetz 3501/17, ISA. 30 US Embassy in Israel Report to State Department, January 27, 1966, NND 9590001, NA. 31 Ibid. 32 Ibid. 33 Yosef Evron, “An Interview with David Ben-Gurion,” Mabat Hadash, May 10, 1967, p. 7. 34 Israeli Embassy in US Report to Foreign Office, March 21, 1965, Hetz 3501/17, ISA. 35 Israeli Embassy in the United States Report to Israeli Foreign Ministry, August 4, 1965, Hetz 3501/20, ISA. 36 Ibid. 37 State Department Memorandum, August 3, 1965, NND 959000, Box 1644, United States National Archives. 38 Israeli Foreign Ministry Memorandum, August 10, 1965, Hetz 3501/20, ISA. 39 Ibid. 40 Ha’aretz, April 15, 1966. 41 Ibid.
124 Notes 42 Report by Moshe Bitan to Israeli Foreign Minister, February 7, 1967, Hetz 3975/17, ISA. 43 On the rivalry between the two men, see Meir Amit, Head to Head, Yediot Ahronot (Tel-Aviv, 1999) (Hebrew). 44 Ben-Gurion’s letter to Golda Meir, January 29, 1965, Correspondence File, BGA. 45 Rafi Meeting, May 21, 1967, LMA. 46 Ben-Gurion’s letter to Binyamin Nahari, January 14, 1968, Correspondence File, BGA. 47 Ben-Gurion’s letter to David Golomb, December 12, 1968, Correspondence File, BGA. 48 Meeting of Mapai’s Secretariat, June 1, 1967, 2–24–1967–1990, LMA. 49 Meeting of the Rafi Faction, May 21, 1967, LMA. 4 The split with Mapai: the founding of Rafi 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
BGD, August 9, 1965, BGA. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Conversation of Rafi with Ben-Gurion, January 8, 1967, Protocols of Meetings File, BGA. Ibid. Rafi Center, January 19, 1967, File 5–4–1967–29, LMA. Ben-Gurion’s letter to Golda Meir, January 19, 1967, File 29–1967–4–5 1967, LMA. Ben-Gurion’s letter to Shaul Avigur, May 2, 1966, BGA. BGD, March 10, 1965, BGA. Ben-Gurion’s letter to Davar Editors, Protocol File, May 14, 1965, BGA. BGD, April 19, 1966, BGA. Matti Golan, Peres (Schocken, Jerusalem, 1982), p. 135 (Hebrew). Carmel, “Everything is Political,” p. 1151. BGD, May 12, 1965, BGA. Ibid. Meeting of Rafi Central Committee, September 25, 1967, LMA. Shimon Peres letter to the Defense Minister (no date), File 7224/47/A, ISA. Shimon Peres speech at Rafi Central Committee, September 28, 1967, LMA. Interview with Avraham Wolfensohn, Tel-Aviv, September 2, 1999. Matti Golan, Peres (Schocken, Jerusalem, 1982), p. 136. See “Returning to the House on the Boulevard,” Maariv, January 30, 1987, p. 2.
5 The road to the Six-Day War 1 US Embassy in Israel Report to State Department, November 4, 1966, NND 959000, Box 2683, NA. 2 Edgar O’Balance, The Third Arab–Israeli War, Faber & Faber, London, 1972, pp. 18–20. 3 Zaki Shalom, “A Missed Opportunity? The Attempt to Make Direct Contact between Israel and Egypt on the Eve of the Six-Day War,” Hazionut, 22, June 2000, 321–354 (Hebrew). 4 See Israeli Foreign Ministry Memorandum, Meeting in Meir Amit’s Home, November 27, 1966, FGN 4091/19, ISA. 5 See Meir Amit, “Secret Contacts Toward Peace: A Missed Opportunity,” in Hezi Carmel (ed.), Intelligence for Peace: The Role of Intelligence in the Era of Peace (Yediot Ahronot, Sifrei Hemed, 1998), p. 308 (Hebrew). 6 See David Shacham, Israel – Forty Years (Am Oved, Tel-Aviv, 1991), p. 235 (Hebrew).
Notes 125 7 See Foreign Ministry Memorandum “American Security Guarantees to Israel,” September 20, 1962, FGN 3377/9, ISA. 8 British Foreign Office, February 4, 1967, FCO 17/231, EJ 3/1, PRO. 9 British Embassy in Amman Report to British Foreign Office, May 24, 1967, FCO 17/234, EJ 3/4, PRO. 10 US Embassy in Israel to State Department, October 26, 1965, NND 959000, Box 1643, NA. 11 Israeli Government Spokesman Bulletin, November 20, 1966, File 1, Yad Eshkol Archive. 12 FRUS, Vol. XVIII, p. 677. 13 Prime Minister’s Office Memo, November 13, 1966, Division 15, File 82, KMA, YAD Tabenkin. 14 Israeli Embassy in the US to Foreign Ministry, November 16, 1966, Hetz 4030/6, ISA. 15 See White House Memorandum, November 24, 1966, NSF, Country File Israel, Vol. 6, Box 140, Lyndon B. Johnson Library. 16 White House Memo, November 24, 1966, NSP Country File, Vol. 6, Box 140, LJL. 17 Ibid. 18 US Embassy in Israel Report to State Department, November 21, 1966, NND 959000, NA. 19 United States Embassy in Israel Report to State Department, November 21, 1966, NND 959000, National Archives of the United States. 20 US Embassy in Israel to State Department, November 21, 1966, NND 959000, NA. 21 Prime Minister Office Memorandum, December 15, 1966, Aleph/10/7227, ISA. 22 See Yoel Nir, “Events in the North,” Mabat Hadash, A Political Weekly, August 3, 1966, p. 12. 23 Matityahu Maizel, The Campaign for the Golan, June 1967 (Ma’arachot, Defense Ministry, 2001), p. 25 (Hebrew). 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid., p. 26. 26 Report of the US Embassy in Israel to State Department, February 8, 1965, NND 959000, Box 1650, National Archives of the United States. 27 US Embassy in Israel Report to State Department, February 8, 1965, NND 959000, Box 1650, NA. 28 US Embassy in Syria Report to State Department, May 17, 1966, NND 959000, Box 1890, NA. 29 Israeli Foreign Ministry Report to Israel Embassy in United States, March 19, 1967, FGN 3975/17, ISA. 30 Ibid. 31 Israeli Foreign Ministry Report to Israel Embassy in United States, April 12, 1967, FGN 4046/2, ISA. 32 Israeli Foreign Ministry Memorandum, no date, “The World Press about Syrian Aggression on the Northern Border,” Gimmel /6387/3704, ISA. 33 See Moshe Dayan, Story of My Life (Idanim, Jerusalem 1976), p. 399 (Hebrew). 6 Criticism of the defense policy 1 Rafi Meeting, May 21, 1967, LMA. 2 Ibid. 3 Ben-Gurion’s Letter to Maj. Gen. Morderchai Hod, April 8, 1967, Correspondence File, BGA. 4 The author’s conversation with Chaim Israeli, May 16, 1999, Tel-Aviv. 5 Yitzhak Rabin, Pinkas Sherut, Vol. 1 (Sifriat Maariv, 1979), p. 150 (Hebrew). 6 Ibid.
126 Notes 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Yitzhak Rabin, Pinkas Sherut, Vol 1 (Sifriat Maariv, 1979), p. 150 (Hebrew). Minutes of Rafi Meeting, May 21, 1967, LMA. Ibid. Ibid. Minutes of Rafi Secretariat Meeting, June 13, 1967, LMA Ibid. Minutes of Rafi Faction Meeting, May 21, 1967, LMA. US Embassy in Israel Report to State Department, January 12, 1965, NND 959000, Box 1643, NA. US Embassy in Israel Report to State Department, February 2, 1965, NND 959000, Box 1643, NA. Avner Yaniv, Politics and Strategy in Israel (Sifriat Poalim, Tel-Aviv, 1994), pp. 200–201 (Hebrew). Ephraim Reiner, “War Enforced by War,” Hotam, February 1, 1967. Ibid. Ya’akov Hazan, Meeting of Mapam’s Political Committee, October 13, 1966, (1).121.90, Hashomer Hatzair Archives (hereafter: HHA). Ibid. A. Ben Asher, “The Right Choice,” Hotam, September 28, 1966, Al Hamishmar. Meeting of Mapam’s Political Committee, October 10, 1966, (1).121.90, HHA. Ibid. Ibid. Meeting of Mapam’s Political Committee, May 18, 1967, (1).121.90, HHA. Meeting of Mapam’s Political Committee, October 10, 1966, (1).121.90, HHA. Meeting of Mapam’s Political Committee, May 18, 1967, (1).122.90, HHA.
7 Ben-Gurion confronts the war 1 See “History, The Six-Day War – The Campaign on the Egyptian Front,” IDF Operations Branch, December 1971, p. 83 (Hebrew). 2 See United States Embassy in Egypt Report to United States State Department, May 29, 1967, NND 969000, Box 2487, National Archives of the United States (hereafter: NAUS). 3 CIA Memorandum, June 1, 1967, NSF, NSC Histories, Middle East Crisis, May 12–June 19, 1967, Vol. 8, Box 20, LBJ Library. 4 State Department Memo, May 19, 1967, NND 969000, Box 1798, NA. 5 British Embassy in Egypt to British Foreign Office, May 17, 1967, FCO 39/265, VK 3/16, PRO. 6 Mahmoud Riad, The Struggle for Peace in the Middle East (Quartet Books, London, 1981), pp. 14–20. 7 US Embassy in Egypt Report to State Department, May 23, 1967, NND 969000, Box 1795, NA. 8 US Embassy in Egypt to State Department, March 5, 1967, NND 969000, Box 2490, NA. 9 Ibid. 10 See Meeting between Nasser and Anderson, United States Embassy in Egypt Report to United States State Department, June 2, 1967, NND 969000, Box 1816, United States National Archives. 11 US State Department Memo, May 28, 1967, NND 969000, Box 1793, NA. 12 US Embassy Report to State Department, May 26, 1967, NND 969000, Box 1795, NA. 13 Minutes of Rafi Meeting, May 21, 1967, LMA, Beit Berl.
Notes 127 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
Ibid. BGD, May 26, 1967, BGA. Ibid. Moshe Dayan, nei Derech: An Autobiography (Idanim Press, Jerusalem, 1976), pp. 410–411 (Hebrew). Ibid. Rafi Meeting in the Knesset, May 21, 1967, LMA. Eshkol’s speech to Mapai Secretariat, June 8, 1967, 2–24–1964–90, LMA. Rafi Meeting, May 29, 1967, BGA. BGD, May 27, 1967, BGA. BGD, May 28, 1967, BGA Minutes of Rafi meeting, June 1, 1967, LMA. Eitan Haber, The Day War Broke Out, p. 221. BGD, June 4, 1967, BGA. BGD, June 5, 1967, BGA. See also: General Staff and Intelligence Branch Memorandum, June 8, 1967, HZ 12/4087, ISA. BGD, June 5, 1967, BGA. See President Johnson’s message to President Nasser, June 4, 1967, NND 969000, Box 2521, NAUS. Rafi Meeting, May 21, 1967, LMA. Ibid. Rafi Meeting, May 29, 1967, LMA. Speeches File, March 2, 1958, BGA. US Embassy in Israel Report to US State Department, May 19, 1967, NND 969000, Box 1796, NAUS.
8 Ben-Gurion’s involvement in the war 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
BGD, June 5, 1967, BGA. Ibid. Ben-Gurion’s letter to Yosef Weiz, June 12, 1967, Correspondence File, BGA. BGD, June 6, 1967, BGA. Ibid. BGD, June 7, 1967, BGA. Eshkol’s speech before Mapai Secretariat, June 8, 1967, 2–24–1964–90, LMA. BGD, June 9, 1967, BGA. Ibid. Rafi Secretariat, June 8, 1967, LMA. BGD, June 10, 1967, BGA. Report by the United States Embassy in Israel to the United States State Department, June 8, 1967, NSF Middle East Crisis, Vol. IV, Box 107, Lyndon Johnson Archives. Report by Foreign Ministry to Israeli Delegation to the UN, June 11, 1967, 4086/6, ISA. BGD, June 11, 1967, BGA. BGD, June 7, 1967, BGA. Eshkol’s Speech before the Mapai Secretariat, June 8, 1967, 2–24–1964–90, LMA. Mapai Secretariat, June 14, 1967, File 2–24–1967–91, LMA. BGD, June 7, 1967, BGA. Eshkol’s Speech before the Mapai Secretariat, June 8, 1967, 2–24–1964–90, LMA. BGD, June 8, 1967, BGA. Ben-Gurion Memorandum, June 10, 1967, General File, BGA. Ibid. BGD, June 8, 1967, BGA.
128 Notes 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
Rafi Secretariat, June 8, 1967, LMA. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. BGD, June 11, 1967, BGA. BGD, June 12, 1967, BGA. BGD, June 13, 1967, BGA. Ibid. Ibid. Ben-Gurion Speech, August 14, 1967, Speeches File, BGA. BGD, June 13, 1967, BGA. Speeches File, July 12, 1967, BGA. Ben-Gurion’s Speech before Rafi Secretariat, September 24, 1967, File 4–1967–28–Z, Labor Party Archives. 39 Ben-Gurion’s Letter, Correspondence File, October 18, 1967, BGA. 40 Ben-Gurion’s Letter, Correspondence File, June 12, 1967 and January 22, 1968, BGA.
Bibliography
Works in Hebrew Yigal Allon, Curtain of Sand, Israel and the Arab World between War and Peace (Hakibbutz Hame’uchad, Tel-Aviv, 1959). Yigal Allon, The Craft of War, Security Topics (Hakibbutz Hame’uchad, Tel-Aviv, 1990). Yosef Almogi, In the Heart of the Matter (Idanim, Jerusalem, 1980). Yosef Almogi, By Pen and Debate (Am Oved, Tel-Aviv, 1982). Meir Amit, “Citizen, General,” Bamachane 12 (December 10, 1986), pp. 23–25, 36–37. Meir Amit, “Secret Contacts Toward Peace: A Missed Opportunity,” in Hezi Carmel (ed.), Intelligence for Peace: The Role of Intelligence in the Era of Peace (Yediot Ahronot, Sifrei Hemed, 1998), pp. 283–317. Meir Amit, Head to Head (Yediot Ahronot, Tel-Aviv, 1999). Asher Arian, “Israel’s Party System,” in Shmuel Stampler (ed.), People and State: Israeli Society – An Anthology (Defense Ministry, Tel-Aviv, 1989), pp. 199–200. Shlomo Aronson, Politics and Strategy of Nuclear Weapons in the Middle East, Fog, Theory, and Reality, 1948–1993, Vols I&II (Akademon, Jerusalem, 1994). A. Ben Asher, “The Right Choice,” Hotam, September 28, 1996. Meir Bareli, “The Debate in Rafi over Samu,” Mabat Hadash, A Political Weekly (December 21, 1966), pp. 10–11. Aryeh Baron, A Personal Signature: Moshe Dayan in the Six-Day War and its Aftermath (Yediat Ahronot, Tel-Aviv, 1997). Mordechai Bar-On, The Gates of Gaza: Israel’s Security and Foreign Affairs Policy: 1955–1957 (Am Oved, Tel-Aviv, 1992). Mordechai Bar-On, “Six Days, Six Questions, and Six Research Proposals,” in Anita Shapira (ed.), Independence: The First Fifty Years, an Anthology of Interdisciplinary Studies (Zalman Shazar Center, Jerusalem, 1998), pp. 330–334. Yitzhak Bar-On, “The Rise and Fall of Friendship: Israeli–French Relations 1956–1967,” Midina, Memshal, Viyachasim Beinle’umim 35 (Autumn–Winter, 1991), pp. 67–89. Ya’acov Bar-Siman-Tov, “The Connection between Behavior in an Internal Conflict and External Conflict: Syria 1961–1967,” Doctorate Dissertation (Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1978). Hanoch Bartov, Dado: 48 Years and 20 Days (Sifriyat Ma’ariv, Tel-Aviv, 1978). Uri Bar-Yosef, “The ‘Rotem’ Affair,” Ma’arachot 347 (1996), pp. 16–28. Michael Bar-Zohar, Ben-Gurion, Vol. III (Am Oved, Tel-Aviv, 1977).
130 Bibliography Michael Bar-Zohar, “Special Relations,” Ha’aretz (June 10, 1992), p. 134. Rafael Bashan, I Have an Interview (Am Oved, Tel-Aviv, 1965). Avraham Ben-Ami, “The Challenge: A Middle Eastern Munich or the Breaking of Egyptian Imperialism,” Mabat Hadash, A Political Weekly (May 24, 1967), p. 3. Gabi Ben-Dor, “Politics and Army in Israel in the Seventies,” in Moshe Lissak and Emanuel Guttman (eds), The Political System in Israel (Am Oved, Tel-Aviv, 1977). Uri Ben-Eliezer, In the Gun Sight: The Creation of Israeli Militarism 1936–1956 (Dvir Publications, Tel-Aviv, 1995). David Ben-Gurion, “A Reply to our Colleague Ofir,” Mabat Hadash, A Political Weekly (December 29, 1965), p. 4. David Ben-Gurion, “A Personal Admission,” Mabat Hadash, A Political Weekly (March 1, 1967), p. 3. David Ben-Gurion, “On the Six-Day War,” Davar (July 2, 1967), p. 6. Yehuda Ben-Meir, Decision Making on National Security Issues: The Israeli View (Hakibbutz Hemeuchad, Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Tel-Aviv University, 1987). Mordechai Bentov, The Days Tell: Memoirs from a Critical Period (Givat Haviva, Tel-Aviv, 1984). Avi Ben-Zvi, “National Interest: Definitions, Perspectives, and the Implementation of American Foreign Policy,” Midina, Memshal, Viyachasim Beinle’umim 12 (1978), pp. 55–77. Ernest Bergman, “We Have no Science Policy,” Mabat Hadash, A Political Weekly (April 20, 1966), p. 13. Alexander Blai, “The Retaliation Raid at Samu – Prelude to the Six-Day War,” in Ya’acov Eshel (ed.), Judea and Samaria Studies, Tenth Volume (Research Section, The Judea and Samaria Academic College, 2001), pp. 259–272. Ruth Bondi, Felix: Pinchas Rosen and His Times (Zamora-Bitan, Tel-Aviv, 1990). Amos Carmel, It’s All Politics: A Lexicon of Israeli Politics, Vol. II (Dvir Publications, Tel-Aviv, 2001). Avi Cohen, The Defense of the Water Sources: The Policy of Activating the Air Force on the Israeli–Syrian Border, 1956–1967 (IDF Publications, Tel-Aviv, 1992). Shabtai Daniel (ed.), Minister Chaim Moshe Shapira: Portrait of a Religious Statesman (Yad Shapira, Tel-Aviv, 1980). Robert Dassa, Back to Cairo (IDF Publishers, Tel-Aviv, 1992). Moshe Dayan, “Comments on the Foreign Policy,” Mabat Hadash, A Political Weekly (March 1, 1967), p. 4. Moshe Dayan, Story of My Life (Idanim Press, Jerusalem, 1976). Ya’acov Dori, “Avraham Wolfensohn’s Letter Contradicts Rafi’s Foundations,” Mabat Hadash, A Political Weekly (February 23, 1966), p. 9. Abba Eban, An Autobiography, Vol. II (Ma’ariv, Tel-Aviv, 1978). Hagai Eshed, Who Gave the Order: The Fiasco, the Lavon Affair and Ben-Gurion’s Resignation (Idanim, Yediot Aharonot, 1979). Levi Eshkol, On the Ascent (Ayanot, Tel-Aviv, 1966). Yosef Evron, “This Week’s Guest – The Interior Minister, Moshe Shapira,” Mabat Hadash, A Political Weekly (September 28, 1966), p. 7. Yosef Evron, “To the Gates of Damascus,” Mabat Hadash, A Political Weekly (April 12, 1967), p. 4.
Bibliography 131 Yosef Evron, “In the Circle’s News,” Mabat Hadash, A Political Weekly (April 19, 1967), p. 6. Yosef Evron, “A Convivial Interview with David Ben-Gurion,” Mabat Hadash, A Political Weekly (May 10, 1967), p. 7. Yoav Gelber, “Ben-Gurion and the Establishment of the IDF,” in Annual Lecture in Memory of Shimon Syrkin 3 (1987), pp. 19–20. Moshe Gilboa, Six Years and Six Days: The Sources and History of the Six-Day War (Am Oved, Tel-Aviv, 1968). Mati Golan, Peres (Schocken, Jerusalem, 1982). Motti Golan, War Will Come in the Summer: Israel on the Road to the Sinai Campaign, 1955–1956 (IDF – Ma’arachot, 1997). Giora Goldberg, Political Parties in Israel: From Mass Parties to Electoral Parties (Ramot, Tel-Aviv University, 1992). Yitzhak Greenberg, Accounting and Power: The Security Budget from War to War, 1957–1967 (IDF Publications, Tel-Aviv, 1997). Carmit Guy, Bar Lev (Am Oved, Tel-Aviv, 1998). Eitan Haber, The Day the War Broke Out: Memoirs of Brigadier General Israel Lior, Military Secretary to the Prime Ministers Levi Eshkol and Golda Meir (Idanim, Tel-Aviv, 1987). Aryeh Hashviya, “A Pessimistic Look at the Nuclear World,” Mabat Hadash, A Political Weekly (January 11, 1966), p. 4. Chaim Herzog, Way of Life: The Story of a Fighter, Diplomat, and President (Yediot Aharonot, Hemed, 1997). Yechiel Kadishai, “The National Unity Government, the Liberation Aspect,” in Asher Susser (ed.), Six Days and Thirty Years: A New Look at the Six-Day War (Am Oved, Tel-Aviv, 1999), pp. 186–191. Eyal Kafkafi, Lavon – Anti-Messiah (Am Oved, Tel-Aviv, 1998). Teddy Kollek, One Jerusalem: A Life Story (Sifriyat Ma’ariv, Tel-Aviv, 1979). Avi Kover, The Victory: The Military Victory in Israeli–Arab Wars 1948–1982 (IDF Publications, Tel-Aviv, 1995). Zvi Lanir, “The Political Objectives and Military Targets in Israel’s Wars,” in Aharon Yariv (ed.), War of Choice – An Anthology (Hakibbutz Hame’uchad, Tel-Aviv, 1985). T. Lavi, “Intelligence, Policy, and Special Roles,” Mabat Hadash, A Political Weekly (January 19, 1966), pp. 10–11. Amira Less, “Her Gray Highness,” Yediot Aharonot, 7 Days (weekend supplement), (October 23, 1998), p. 56. Ariel Levita, Israel’s Military Doctrine: Defense and Offense (Hakibbutz Hame’uchad, Tel-Aviv, 1988). Matityahu Maizel, The Campaign for the Golan, June 1967 (Ma’arachot, Ministry of Defense, 2001). Moshe Maizles, From Ben-Gurion to Peres: Crumbs from the Political Kitchen (Yaron Golan, Tel-Aviv, 2000). Moshe Maoz, Israel–Syria – End of the Conflict? (Sifriyat Ma’ariv, 1996). Dan Margalit, I Saw Them (Zamora-Beitan, Tel-Aviv, 1997). Meron Medzini, The Proud Jewess: Golda Meir and the Vision of Israel – A Political Biography (Idanim and Yediot Aharonot, Jerusalem, 1990). Golda Meir, My Life (Sifriyat Ma’ariv, Tel-Aviv, 1975).
132 Bibliography Shlomo Nakdimon, Toward Zero Hour: The Drama that Preceded the Six-Day War (Ramdor Ltd., Tel-Aviv, 1968). Shlomo Nakdimon, “The Generals’ Revolt of ’67,” Yediot Aharonot (September 15, 1985), pp. 16–18. Shlomo Nakdimon, “Blood Pact,” Yediot Aharonot (September 16, 1994). Uzi Narkis, A Soldier of Jerusalem (IDF Publications, Tel-Aviv, 1991). Yoel Nir, “Events in the North,” Mabat Hadash, A Political Weekly (August 3, 1966), p. 12. Shimon Peres, “How to Neutralize the Danger of War,” Mabat Hadash, A Political Weekly (September 1, 1965), p. 3. Shimon Peres, “Why I Support Ben-Gurion,” in Shimon Peres, The Next Stage (Tel-Aviv, 1965), pp. 269–272. Shimon Peres, “The Struggle for a Statist Approach and Security Independence,” Mabat Hadash, A Political Weekly (April 20, 1966), p. 6. Shimon Peres, “An Israeli Choice for Syria’s Leaders,” Mabat Hadash, A Political Weekly (January 25, 1967), p. 3. Shimon Peres, “Israel’s Security Situation Following the Evacuation of the UN Forces,” Mabat Hadash, A Political Weekly (May 24, 1967), p. 5. Shimon Peres, David’s Sling (Weidenfeld and Nicolson, Jerusalem, 1971). Shimon Peres, Go With People: Seven Profiles (Idanim, Jerusalem, 1978). Shimon Peres, Now – Tomorrow (Sifrei Mabat, Jerusalem, 1978). Roman Prister, Israel Barzilai – Sketches (Sifriyat Hapoalim, Tel-Aviv, 1975). Leah Rabin, Always his Wife (Idanim and Sifrei Yediot Aharonot, Tel-Aviv, 1988). Leah Rabin, Walking in his Path (Yediot Aharonot, Tel-Aviv, 1997). Yitzhak Rabin, “The Six-Day War, Characteristics and Achievements,” Ma’arachot 256 (June 1977), pp. 5–6. Yitzhak Rabin, Service Diary, Vol. I (Sifriyat Ma’ariv, Tel-Aviv, 1979). Itamar Rabinovich, The Elusive Peace: Israeli–Arab Relations 1949–1952 (Keter, Jerusalem, 1991). Ephraim Reiner, “War Enforced by War,” Hotam (February 1, 1967). M. Sadinsky, “The Debate over the Parade,” Mabat Hadash, A Political Weekly (February 23, 1966), p. 14. Shmuel Segev, War and Peace in the Middle East (Tversky Publications, Tel-Aviv, 1968). K. Shabtai, “I Asked David Ben-Gurion,” Mabat Hadash, A Political Weekly October 12, 1966, p. 17. David Shacham, Israel – Forty Years (Am Oved, Tel-Aviv, 1991). Zaki Shalom, “Ben-Gurion’s Diary as an Historical Source,” Cathedra 56 (1989), pp. 136–149. Zaki Shalom, “On Ruth Bondy’s Book: Felix: Pinchas Rosen and his Times, Tel-Aviv, 1990,” Iyunim Bitkumat Israel 1 (1991), pp. 569–574. Zaki Shalom, “Israel’s Struggle to Block the UN Resolution on the Internationalization of Jerusalem in the Fifties,” Iyunim Bitkumat Israel 3 (1993), pp. 75–98. Zaki Shalom, “The Reactions of the Western Powers to the Publicity over the Nuclear Reactor in Dimona in the Early Sixties,” Iyunim Bitkumat Israel 4 (1994), pp. 136–174. Zaki Shalom, “The Tension over the IDF’s Steps in 1958 and 1961,” in Avi Bareli (ed.), Divided Jerusalem 1948–1967: Sources, Summaries, Selected Topics, and Supplementary Material (Idan Series, Jerusalem, 1994), pp. 61–69. Zaki Shalom, “Ben-Gurion’s Resignation from the Government: June 1963, Ben-Gurion’s Diary, June 16, 1963,” Iyunim Bitkumat Israel 5 (1995), pp. 608–641.
Bibliography 133 Zaki Shalom, “From the ‘Low Profile’ Policy to the ‘Pulverizing Strategy’: The Kennedy Administration and its Attitude toward Israel’s Nuclear Activity 1962–1963,” Iyunim Bitkumat Israel 5 (1995), pp. 126–164. Zaki Shalom, “Sharett’s Resignation from Government (June 1956) – Private, Party, and Political Aspects,” Hazionut 20 (1996), pp. 259–289. Zaki Shalom, “Foreign Minister Abba Eban’s Meeting with President Lyndon Johnson on the Eve of the Six-Day War,” Yahadoot Zmaneinu, Tziyonoot, Midinat YIsrael Vihatfootzot 11–12 (1998), pp. 301–336. Anita Shapira, Land and Power: Zionism and Power, 1881–1948 (Am Oved, Tel-Aviv, 1992). Moshe Shemesh, “The Palestinian National Awakening and the Turning Point in King Husayn’s Attitude towards Israel and the West Bank,” Iyunim Bitkumat Israel 10 (2000), pp. 122–164. Shimon Shitreet, “Democracy under War Conditions in Israel,” in Shmuel Stampler (ed.), People and State’ Israeli Society – An Anthology of Articles (Israeli Defense Ministry, Tel-Aviv, 1989), pp. 381–402. Avi Shlaim, “An Interview with Yitzhak Rabin, Tel-Aviv, August 22, 1982,” Iyunim Bitkumat Israel 8 (1998), p. 683. André Shuraki, “Talks with Ben-Barka, The Assassinated Refugee,” Mabat Hadash, A Political Weekly (March 15, 1966), p. 4. Eliyahu Slepter and Yuval EliTzur, The Establishment: Who Rules Israel? (Levin-Epstein, Jerusalem, 1973). Southern Command, The Four Day War (IDF Publications, Tel-Aviv, 1969). Ehud Sprintzak, “Parliamentary Foreign Policy in Israel,” in Shmuel Stampler (ed.), People and State’ Israeli Society – An Anthology (Israeli Defense Ministry, Tel-Aviv, 1989), p. 225. Asher Susser, “Jordan and the Six-Day War,” in Asher Susser (ed.), Six Days and Thirty Years: A New Look at the Six-Day War (Am Oved, Tel-Aviv, 1999), pp. 105–107. Rami Tal, “Moshe Dayan – Reconsiderations,” Yediot Aharonot (April 27, 1997), pp. 2–4. Yosef Tamir, Behind the Curtains: Personal Letters from the Knesset (Yachdav, Tel-Aviv, 1991). Shabtai Teveth, Moshe Dayan: A Biography (Schocken, Tel-Aviv, 1971). Shabtai Teveth, Banana Peel: Why David Ben-Gurion Fell (Ish-Dor, Tel-Aviv, 1992). Yair Tzaban, “The IDF and Israeli Democracy,” Maarachot 287 (1983), pp. 42–45. Zeev Tzachor, “The Fear that Led to Victory,” Al Hamishmar, Hotam (June 5, 1992), p. 7. Zeev Tzachor, Hazan – A Life’s Movement: Hashomer Hatzair, Hakibbutz Ha’artzi, and Mapam (Yad Yitzhak Ben-Zvi and Yad Ya’ari, 1997). Mordechai Tzipori, In a Straight Line (Yediot Aharonot and Sifrei Hemed, Tel-Aviv, 1997). Zerah Warhaftig, Fifty Years and a Year: Memoirs (Yad Shapira, Jerusalem, 1998). Yechiam Weitz, “To the Fantasy and Back,” Iyunim Bitkumat Israel 8 (Ben-Gurion Research Center, 1998), pp. 298–319. Ezer Weizman, Skyward – Earthbound (Ma’ariv, Tel-Aviv, 1975). Avraham Wolfensohn, “Deterrent Force and Security Policy,” Davar (May 10, 1963), p. 2. Avraham Wolfensohn, “An Open Letter to Six Chiefs-of-Staff,” Mabat Hadash, A Political Weekly (February 16, 1966), pp. 5, 18.
134 Bibliography Avraham Wolfensohn, “The Six Days of Moshe Dayan,” Mabat Hadash, A Political Weekly (October 3, 1967), pp. 4–6. Avraham Wolfensohn, David Ben-Gurion – A Decade after his Death: 1886–1973 (Histadrut Publishers, Tel-Aviv, 1983). Rafael Yakar, Israel–United States Relations: The Arms Acquisition Factor, 1955–1967 (IDF, Defense Ministry Documents and Research Unit, Tel-Aviv, 1995). Gad Yakobi, “The Political Crisis in the Waiting Period, Causes and Results,” in Asher Susser (ed.), Six Days and Thirty Years: A New Look at the Six-Day War (Am Oved, Tel-Aviv, 1999), pp. 170–179. Natan Yanai, Political Crises in Israel: The Ben-Gurion Period (Keter, Jerusalem, 1982). Avner Yaniv, Politics and Strategy in Israel (Sifriyat Hapoalim, Haifa University, The Gustav Heinman Isntitute, 1994). Aharon Yariv, Cautious Assessment: An Anthology (IDF Publications and the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Tel-Aviv, 1998). Uri Yarom, Songbird (IDF Publications, Tel-Aviv, 2001). Shimshon Yitzhaki, In the Arabs’ Eyes: The Six-Day War and its Aftermath (IDF Publications, Tel-Aviv, 1969). Pinchas Yorman, “Ben-Gurion by the Wall,” Davar (June 9, 1967), p. 9. Moshe Zak, “The Transformation in David Ben-Gurion’s Attitude toward the Kingdom of Jordan,” Iyunim Bitkumat Israel 6 (Ben-Gurion Research Center, 1996), pp. 85–110. Eyal Zisser, “Between Israel and Syria – The Six-Day War and its Aftermath,” Iyunim Bitkumat Israel 8 (Ben-Gurion Research Center, 1998), pp. 205–253.
Newspapers Al Hamishmar Davar Ha’aretz Jerusalem Post Mabat Hadash, Shavuon Midini New Outlook
Index
Achdut Ha’avoda party 9, 19, 28, 40; and Mapam coalition 16, 60 Adenauer, Chancellor 17, 20 “Affair Prisoners” see Lavon Affair Ahronot, Yediot 124 n.43, 124 n.5 Algeria 56; anti-French uprising in 7 Al Hamishmar 87 Alignment (Ma’arach), headed by Eshkol 64 Allon, Yigal 9, 40 Almogi, Yosef 102, 107, 114 Alterman, Nathan 97 Amar, Field Marshal, Egypt’s defense minister 67, 93 America/n: negotiations between Israel and Egypt mediated by 24; political-security thinking 48; position on tension with Syria 78; Sixth Fleet stationed in Mediterranean 95; weaknesses, three main 48; see also United States; Washington American–Israeli relations 49; endangering support for 41; friendship for 53; representatives visiting Dimona reactor 39, 50; security guarantees 49, 51; talks on inspection issue 50 Amit, Meir, Head of Mossad 25, 53, 54, 122 n.5, 124 n.5; proposed trip to Egypt 67, 68 Anderson, Robert 94 Anglo-Egyptian Agreement 23 April 7 aerial incident see Syria Arab/s: antagonism 43; Chiefs of Staff Conference in Cairo 65; infiltration 3; plan for diverting sources of Jordan River into Arab areas 65, 85; resolve to challenge postwar reality 4; Summit meeting in Cairo 65
Arab–Israeli confrontation 86, 103; low-intensity conflict 4, 67; reduction in hostilities against Israel after Sinai Campaign 67; total rejection of any “Jewish entity” in Middle East 1 Arab–Israeli reconciliation 69 Aranne, Zalman 13, 16 Argov, Shlomo 76 Atherton, Roy 78 Avigur, Shaul 57, 59, 124 n.9 Ayalon, David 68 Azar, Moshe 23 Ba’ath regime in Syria 65, 66, 83, 86 Bamachane 75 Barbour, Walworth, US Ambassador to Israel 50, 51, 76, 78; visit to Israel’s northern border 77 Barkat, Reuven 16; secretary of Mapai 18 Bar-Lev, Chaim 19 Battle, Lucius 77 Beer-Sheva 52 Begin, Menachem 5, 21, 112, 114 Beit Shan Valley 66 Ben Asher, A. 126 n.21 Ben-Barka, Mehdi 53 Ben-Barka Affair 53–56; as “security blunder” 53 Ben-David, Haim 27 Ben-Gurion, David 5; Adenauer meeting, aborted 17–22; alienation from Mapai’s leadership 22; Arab–Israeli conflict, views on nature of 3; authoritarian and unbending personality 62; charges of “security incompetence” regarding nuclear option 52; clear-cut statements on
136 Index Ben-Gurion, David (Continued) defense issues 6; demand for judicial inquiry 32; eventual split with party 10; exile 5; fluctuating positions 96–105; France, Israel’s reliance on 56; involvement in war 106; on Jerusalem’s liberation in Six-Day War 116–118; leadership skills 119; major political decisions 1; new government 6; nuclear option of Israel, views on I 49; political power 9, 16; Prime Minister 39; protégés of 16; and Rafi’s criticism 79–86; resignation 9, 12–17, 31, 121 n.1; return to leadership 26; senior IDF promotions 19; silence on Samu Operation 80; Tel-Aviv 107; visit to Israeli Air Force’s (IAF) “pit” at GHQ 106; war, view of 92; war’s gains, strengthening of 110–118; written code 15 Ben-Gurion and Eshkol: accusation of government of yielding ground to Americans 48; allegation of “security incompetence” 37, 38, 52; Ben-Barka Affair, criticism of role in 54; campaign against 22, 23, 36, 49, 79, 80, 114; campaign against government 79; charge of grave “security blunder” 37; ingratitude of 15; initial frictions 12; motives for attacks on 55; support as heir-designate 15, 16; tension between 17, 61, 64 Ben-Yosef, Asher 57 Bergmann, Ernest David 52 Bethlehem 115, 116 Binnet, Max 23 Bitan, Moshe 124 n.42 Blockade of straits see Straits of Tiran Border tensions 4, 74; Egypt 67; Jordan 8, 71; Syria 70, 79–81, 87 Bourghiba, Habib, president of Tunisia 69 Brazil 92; regiment in Gaza strip 93 British Mandate, struggle against 1 British withdrawal from Egypt 23 Bull, Odd, General 110 Canada 92; regiment in Sinai 93 Carmel, Amos 122 n.23 Carmel, Hezi 124 n.5 Carmon, David, Colonel 68 Castro, Fidel 39
Chuvakhin, Soviet Ambassador to Israel 110 CIA 95 Civil–military relations in democracy, proper 88 Committee of Seven see Lavon Affair Conference of the Heads of African States in Kinshasa 95 Cuba 39; Soviet activity inside 76 Dan River, source of 65 Dar, Avraham 24, 25, 121 n.2, 122 nn.4–6 Dassa, Robert 24 Davar 37, 38 Dayan, Moshe, General and Defense Minister 2, 3, 9, 16, 26, 36, 56, 64, 80, 83, 85, 98, 103, 104, 106, 107, 109, 114, 125 n.33, 127 n.17; autobiography, Story of My Life 98; security establishment’s shortcomings 84; strategic concept 4; “working plan” 3 Defense policy, criticism of 79 De Gaulle, Charles, President 21, 55, 113; France’s relations with Arab world 56; supporters 113 Demilitarization of Sinai 7 Demilitarized zones 66 Desert kibbutz of Sede-Boker 5 Dimona Affair 36, 45 Dimona nuclear reactor 38, 43 Dimona Project 10, 40, 46; American officials, frequent inspections by 49; American request to assure President Nasser about activity at 43; Ben-Gurion’s “willingness” to agree to “periodic visits” to 41; for industrial and economic needs 39; inspections at 40, 48; Kennedy’s message to Eshkol 41; lack of broad support for 41; reaffirming nature and aims of 42 Dori, Ya’acov 36, 37 Eban, Abba, Foreign Minister 85, 114; mission to Western capitals 100 Egypt 96, 120; air strike 105; army deployed in Sinai 96; avoiding military confrontation with Israel 94; blockade of Straits of Tiran 84, 95; Czech arms deal 6; desire for peaceful status quo with Israel 68;
Index 137 espionage operation by Israel 23; intelligence fiasco in 28; Israeli military clash 83; Israeli relations 68, 91; Jewish community in 23; military inferiority vis-à-vis Israel 67; missile systems, development of 45; motive for demanding removal of UN forces 93; negotiations, opportunity for direct, high-level 68; non-conventional capability 103; nuclear activity 43; nuclear capability 46; objective situation 67; peace agreement 51; political status 23; POWs (Prisoners of War) 24; reduction in hostilities by 8; Sharm al-Sheikh, control of 94; show of military might 92; Sinai, forces in 81, 92; Soviet bloc, arms deal between 6; spy ring in 24, 25; Syria, commitment to 69; Syria Ba’ath regime, full recognition of 66; unconventional weapons 83; see also Nasser, President Eilat, Israel’s Red Sea port of 94; to Sharm-el-Sheikh, land-bridge linking 7 Eisenstadt, Shmuel 68 Elazar, David, Major General 77 Elections, national, in Israel 5, 31, 54; Rafi in 11, 64 Eretz Israel 107 Eshkol, Levi 2, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 28, 111, 114; alleged responsibility for security fiasco 36; army, use for political ends 59; attempt to destabilize government of 63; Dimona Project, policy on 119; government’s Syrian policy 108; internal party affairs, handling of 21; Jerusalem’s status, position on securing 59; Johnson, meeting with 46; Lavon Affair, handling of 13; leadership with legitimacy 61; nuclear option, policy for developing 38; nuclear program, “disastrous submission” on 50; prime minister–defense minister 85; Rafi opponents 49; retaliatory policy 89; speech at convention 19; state’s secret services 53; Syrian regime, government aiming to topple 94; understanding with Americans 48; United States, attempt to improve relationship 56; United States,
maneuvering position vis-à-vis 52; see also Ben-Barka Affair; Ben-Gurion and Eshkol; Lavon Affair Espionage operation in Egypt 23 Ethiopia 69 Etzel 1 Etzion Bloc 116 European Jewry, attempts to rescue 1 Evron 50 “Fatah Organization,” Palestinian 65 Fawzi, chief of staff, General 93 France: deterioration of Israeli relations 54; involvement in Sinai Campaign 56; Israel policy 113; and Israel relations 8, 54, 55, 114; long-range missiles that Israel was about to receive from 45; nuclear program 50; relations with Arab world 56; transfer of reactor’s operation to Israel 43; willingness to supply Israel with arms 6 Galilee, Israel 9 Galilee, Sea of 65, 66 Galili, Israel 40 Gavish, Yeshayahu, General 92 Gaza Strip 93; armed infiltration from 97; Israel partial control over 7; regugees in 111, 114; Swedish, Brazilian and Indian regiments deployed in 93 Gazit, Mordechai 46, 50, 68; report 47 Gazit, Shlomo, Colonel 68 General Armistice Agreements 110 German–Israeli relations 41 German Scientists Affair in Egypt 39, 41, 54 Germany’s long-term commitments to Israel 17 Gibli, Benyamin, head of military intelligence 26, 27 Ginai, Ariel 68 Golan, Matti 63, 124 n.21 Golan Heights 108, 118; seizing 109 Golda see Meir, Golda Golomb, David 55, 124 n.47 Gotthalf, Yehuda 37, 38, 123 nn.3–5 Gross, Shlomo 68 Guerrilla warfare, popular 65 Ha’aretz 48 Hacohen, David 36 Hagana 59
138 Index Halevi, Ephraim 68 Hammarskjöld, Dag 93 Harari, Yizhar 68 Harel, Issar, first director of Mossad 53, 68 Harel, Yossi 27, 53 Har-Even, Major General 68 Harkav, Yehoshaphat, General 68 Harman, Avraham, Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Avraham 46, 72 Harriman, Averill, W. 46, 47 Hazan, Ya’akov 9, 88, 89, 126 nn.19, 20 Hebrew University in Jerusalem 32, 116; Board of Governors 118 Hebron 66, 115; Patriarch’s Tomb in 116 Hemed, Sifrei 124 n.5 Herut Party 5, 20 Herzog, Chaim, General 115 Hevrat Ha’ovdim 31 Histadrut (Labor Federation) 5 Hod, Mordechai, Maj. Gen. 80, 81, 106, 112, 125 n.3 Hod, Motti, Colonel 19, 20 Holocaust 1 Hulda Letter 32 Humphrey, Hubert 102 Hussein, King of Jordan 70; demand for immediate military aid from the United States 72; reassurance of America’s support 72; regime of 80; reign in aftermath of Samu raid 71; see also Jordan IDF see Israeli Defense Forces Independence Day: IDF parade through Jerusalem’s streets 92; parade in Haifa 60 India 92, 93; arms race with Pakistan 49; regiment in Gaza strip 93 Indo-Pakistan war 48; Soviet arbitration at Tashkent 69; Soviet initiatives to ease tension Pakistan between and 68 International Court in The Hague, Nasser’s proposal to refer straits issue to 96 International inspection at Dimona 50 Iran 69, 76 Ish-Shalom, Mordechai 112 Israel: ambassador to Washington 74; American-made Patton tanks, use
of 72; Arab population, demographic consequences in annexing 111; Arab world, implementing provocative policy against 95; Atomic Energy Commission 52; close ties with peripheral states 69; declaration of statehood 1; demilitarized zones, rights in 86; deterrence capability 6, 7, 75; France and Britain, plans for joint military operation against Egypt 7; and France, relations with 7, 55; Gaza Strip, partial control over 7; German policy 17; holy sites and Mount Scopus, free access to 60; intelligence operation in Egypt, blunder during 23; Jerusalem, status in 3, 60; Jordan, large-scale retaliation in 66; military operations on Jordanian and Syrian fronts 108; military victory 110; Morocco, need to pacify 56; northern border 76; nuclear capability 44, 47; nuclear development 38, 40, 42, 54, 105; nuclear option 1, 7, 8, 38, 47; nuclear program, American position on 45; Old City, sovereignty in 111; political stability 24; pro-Western Arab states, limited ability to retaliate against 70, 74; reprisal 70; retaliation policy 72; security guarantees mainly from American administration 42, 69; security problem 51, 79; shipping through straits 96; status quo in Middle East 66, 69; terrorist attacks originating in Jordan 70; West Bank 71, 73 Israeli Air Force (IAF) 65, 83; air strike 9, 102; air superiority against Syria 75 Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) 3; appointments 20; attack on Egyptians 97; modus operandi toward Syria 81; operations against Syria 88; preparedness for war 37, 103; raids against Jordan 66; Syrian policy 86 Israeli–Egyptian war 6 Israeli–Jordanian Armistice Agreement 60; violations of 92 Israeli–Syria relations: border incident involving Israeli jets 75; ceasefire 109; defense establishment, escalation policy toward 78; dispute
Index 139 over the diversion of water sources 87; modus operandi 81; nature and aims of action against Syria 75; nature of threat to Israel 65–69; operations against 88; policy towards 86; refraining from attacking 66; retaliation policy toward 76 Jabotinsky, Ari 20, 21 Jabotinsky, Ze’ev 21; reburial of bones 20 Jerusalem 1, 3, 60, 107; “Arab claim” to 113; handling of 111; international status 69; Jewish Quarter of 115; liberation in Six-Day War 116, 117; military parade on Independence Day 60; status of 59–60; Western Wall 111, 113, 115, 116; see also Old City Jerusalem Post 85 Jewish dissident paramilitary organizations 1 Jewish exiles ingathering of 1 Jewish vote 47 Johnson, President 18, 72, 100; Dimona nuclear reactor, intentions regarding 20; letter to Eshkol 43; meetings with Eshkol 45; special envoys 47 Johnson Administration 43, 44 Jordan 74, 76, 120; ally of the West 71; border 8; deployment of Patton tanks 74; Israeli military operations on 108; Israeli relations 79; sector of Jerusalem 116; sources diversion of 65; see also Hussein, King of Jordan; Samu Operation/Raid Joseph, Dov 18 Kennedy, President 9, 123 n.14; assassination 43, 46; and Ben-Gurion, balance of power between 39; pressure on Israel 10, 40 Kennedy Administration 39; Israel’s breach with 41; pressure on Israel 10, 40 Kibbutz Dan 65 Kibbutz Hulda 32 Kibia Operation, 1953 80 Kinneret Operation 109 Knesset 5; Foreign Affairs and Security Committee 36
Kollek, Teddy, Director-General of the Prime Minister’s Office 17, 18, 20, 46, 60, 111, 112, 115, 116 Komet, Robert, W. 46, 47, 50, 72 Laskov, Haim, chief of staff 27, 36 Lavon, Pinchas 2, 5, 26; Ben-Gurion’s denials of involvement in dismissal 30; dismissal 26, 30; and Gibli, meeting between 33; loyalists 27; resignation 30; supporters in Mapai 31 Lavon Affair 9–11, 23, 39, 63, 119; Ben-Gurion resignation 29; Ben-Gurion’s demand for judicial inquiry 10, 28–29, 32–34; case before Knesset Foreign Affairs and Security Committee 27; Committee of Seven 28, 29, 34, 60; Eshkol’s objection to Ben-Gurion’s demands 33–35; espionage operation, botched 26; indifference of Israeli authorities to prisoners 24; political implications 28–35; “Prisoners of the Affair” 24; reinvestigation of 64; responsibility for catastrophe 26; source of friction between Ben-Gurion and Eshkol 31 Lebanon 74, 76 Lechi 1 Levi, Victor 24 “Little Alignment,” merging of Mapai and Achdut Ha’avoda 60 Low-intensity war 4, 67 Mabat Hadash 36, 49, 85 Maizel, Matityahu 125 nn.23–25 Makhus, Ibrahim, Prime Minister 66 Makleff, Mordechai 36 Mapai 2, 5; Ben-Gurion’s resignation 14; Central Committee 14, 30; conventions 18, 20, 60–64; demand for greater ideological-political pluralism in 31; hegemony 24; High Court 61; inner ring of decision makers 22; internal struggle 9; leadership’s internal struggle 62; new government downfall 2; split 57 Mapam party 9, 28; criticism 86–91; pro-Soviet orientation 90 Marzuk, Shmuel 23 Mass immigration 1 Meir, Golda 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 38, 53, 59, 61, 111, 121 n.3, 122 nn.17, 25, 124 nn.8, 44; Foreign Minister
140 Index Meir, Golda (Continued) talks in Washington 44; power in government 14; rejection of Ben-Gurion’s policy 18 Meshel, Yerucham 57 Meyuchas, Meir 24 Middle East: Israel as power player 8; status quo 74 Military initiatives, Ben-Gurion’s objection to 103 “Min Hayesod” (From the Basis) 31; pro-Lavon group 32 Missile project 46 Moral image of Israel 79 Morocco 56, 69; need to pacify 56; secret service 53 Mossad 53, 55, 67; Amit, Meir, head of 25, 53, 67, 68; Harel, Issar, first head of 53, 68; involvement in Ben-Barka assassination 53 Mount Scopus 116, 118 Muhyi ad-Din, Zakariya, Egyptian Vice President 102 Nahari, Binyamin 124 n.46 Namir, Mordechai 26 Nasser, President 41, 44, 51, 65, 67, 81, 94, 95, 96; blind to dire consequences of blockading straits 97; bragging 104; brazen provocations and excessive confidence 103; Egypt’s status to be enhanced by bold military-political moves 83; fears of Israel’s military capability 44; International Court in The Hague, proposal to refer straits issue to 96; Johnson’s message to 127 n.28; prestige 100; real motives and intentions 97; regime, move to topple 7; revising strategic posture toward Israel 7; self-aggrandizement in Arab world 99; water diversion proposal 65; see also Egypt Nathanson, Philip 24 National Security Council 46 National Unity Government 11, 108, 118 National Water Carrier (NWC) 65 Navon, Yitzhak 64 Navot, Menachem 68 Ninio, Marcel 24 Nir, Yoel 125 n.22 Nisiyahu, Mordechai, Prime Minister’s Military Advisor 46, 55
No war – no peace strategy 4 Nuclear development in Israel 1, 7, 8, 38, 40, 42, 47, 54, 105 Nuclear facility in Dimona see Dimona nuclear reactor; Israel Nuclear proliferation 45; global monitoring of weapons 49 Old City 108, 115; Jews, resettlement of 112; see also Jerusalem Olshen-Dori committee 33 Operation Rotem 97 Operation Shredder 70 Oron, Yitzhak 68 Pakistan: and India, arms race 49; and India, Soviet Union’s mediation 48, 69; and United States military alliance 48; see also India Palestinian Arabs 3 Palestinian refugee problem 69 Palmach generation 19 Patriarch’s Tomb in Hebron 116 Peled, Natan 68 People’s war of liberation 65 Peres, Shimon 9, 16, 18, 26, 31, 46, 47, 48, 57, 58, 80, 83, 85, 97, 99, 102, 103, 110, 114; Deputy Defense Minister 14; secretary of Rafi 86 Politicization of defense establishment 57–69 Pre-Six-Day War period 85; Ben-Gurion’s concern about hasty militant moves 102 Public security, guaranteeing 4 Rabin, Yitzhak, Chief of Staff 19, 20, 24, 70, 76, 77, 81, 82, 83, 92, 120, 122 n.4, 125 n.5; breakdown during prewar waiting period 82; dominant role in formulating nation’s defense policy 83; remark regarding Israel’s Syrian policy 88; and US ambassador to Israel, meeting between 76; US military attaché, meeting with 73 Rachel’s Tomb 116 Rafi 36, 58, 80, 103; basic principles 37; Central Committee 117; election results 11, 64; establishment of separate faction 61; founding of 57; new, independent party 11; Peres as secretary 86; policy toward Arab world 85; reunion with Mapai 11;
Index 141 Secretariat 110; weekly journal, Mabat Chadash 36, 49, 85 Reiner, Eliezer 87 Reiner, Ephraim 126 nn.17, 18 Research missile 31 Resignation 10 Revisionist movement 20 Riftin, Ya’akov 68, 89, 90 Rikhye 92 Riyad, Mahmud, Egyptian Foreign Minister 95 Rosen, Pinchas 28, 29, 33, 34 Rotenstreich, Nathan 32 Rothschild, Edmund 113 Rush, Dean, Secretary of State 44 Saig, Eli 122 n.33 Samu Operation/Raid 66, 70–74, 80; American position 74–78; Ben-Gurion’s silence on 80; King Hussein’s message to Israel 72; repercussions in Jordan 71; United States criticism 71 Sapir, Joseph 108 Sapir, Pinchas 9, 14, 16 Saudi Arabia 76 Saunders, Hal 77 Schwimmer, Al 57 Security blunder 119 Sede-Boker, desert kibbutz 5 Service Record 81 Sèvres Conference 7 Sha’ar Yishuv 65 Shabtai, K. 122 n.34 Shacham, David 124 n.6 Shalom, Zaki 121 n.31, 122 n.22 Shapira, Chaim Moshe 28, 111, 114 Sharett, Moshe, Foreign Minister 2, 13, 16, 30, 61, 116; and Ben-Gurion, relations between 5; dismissal 122 n.22; dual role of prime minister-foreign minister 3; premiership, consequences of 5; strategic thinking 6 Sharma al-Sheikh 93 Shavit 2, 31 Sheikh Hussein Bridge 66 Shinar, Felix, Israel’s unofficial ambassador to Germany 17 Shnitzer, Shmuel 68 Shoshani, Eliezer 55 Sinai Campaign, 1956 1, 7, 8, 67, 69, 95, 97, 104, 120; IDF withdrawal
after 92; and Six-Day War, interim between 8 Sinai Peninsula 93; “rolling crisis” in 94; UN troops, stationing in 7 Sinai War see Sinai Campaign Six-Day War 1, 11, 24, 55, 62, 69, 70, 78; events preceding 119; eve of 81; first stages of crisis 92–96; IDF’s dazzling victory 37; outbreak of 24, 52, 119; road to 65 Soviet Union 83; arbitration at Tashkent 68, 69; decision to sever diplomatic relations with Israel 109; Israel’s fear of intervention on Syria’s side 76, 78, 104, 109; warning 110 statehood consciousness 15 State of Israel 12 Straits of Tiran 83, 85, 94, 95; blockade of 100; closure as act of belligerency 97; guarantee of free passage through 7, 93; to Israel’s territorial waters, blockade of 94, 100 Strategic material 96 Suawaydani, Chief of Staff 66, 70 Suez Campaign 24 Suez evacuation 121 n.1 Surface-to-surface missiles, acquisition of 54 Sweden 92; regiment in Gaza strip 93 Syria 74; acts of sabotage backed by 65; Ba’ath regime 66, 82, 86; border 8, 67, 80; Communist bloc, close alignment 76; consent to Security Council resolution for ceasefire 108, 109; delegation 66; and Egypt, defense 66, 94; hard-line position in Arab world 87; incident of April 7, 1967 80, 81, 89–91; and Jordan, tensions 70; militant policy in international arena 70; pleas to Cairo 92; propaganda to undermine Jordan’s Hashemite dynasty 70; relentless belligerency 76; ties with Soviet Union 65, 104 Syria and Israel relations: decision to escalate incidents on border 120; halting provocations against 76; hostile policy toward Israel 69; Israeli civilian settlements, shelling of 65; Israeli defense establishment’s attitude on 78; military operations on Syrian fronts 108; military superiority of Israel 75; nature of threat to Israel 65–69; rising tension 79
142 Index Tel-Aviv Workers Council 58 Terrorist campaign against Israel 65 Terror organizations attacking Israel from Jordanian territory 70 Turkey 69 Tzur, Zvi, Chief of Staff 19, 36, 85, 102, 107, 109 UAR missile threat 45 United Nations: Partition Plan 69; pullout from Sinai 90 United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) 93, 94; evacuation of Sinai 92, 94; troops from Sweden, Brazil, Canada, Yugoslavia and India 92 United States 76, 95; Act of Battle – List of Strategic Materials 96; attitude toward Israel’s nuclear option, dramatic shift in 45; Embassy in Tel-Aviv 60; involvement in Vietnam 76; policy of preventing nuclear proliferation 49; presidential elections 38; procuring weapons from 6; Security Council decision for ceasefire between Israel and Syria 110; standing vis-à-vis USSR 42; see also America/n; Washington U Thant, UN Secretary General 93, 94, 95
Israel’s agreement to monitoring arrangements at Dimona reactor 43; fearful of nuclear proliferation 49; Israel in danger of breach of faith with 29; Israel’s nuclear program, change in attitude toward 39; see also America/n; United States Water disputes 66 Weitz, Yosef 107, 127 n.3 Weizman Ezer, General 19, 106, 112 West Bank 108, 118; Ben-Gurion’s views on 108, 111, 113; Israel’s plan to occupy 73; Palestinian villages 74; protests following Samu raid 71 Western Powers 70, 76; need for coordination with 105 Wolffensohn, Avraham 36
Vietnam 48 Vietnam War 49 Voice of Israel 108
Ya’ari, Meir 9, 87 Yadin, Yigael, General 36, 106 Yahil, Chaim, Director-General of the Foreign Ministry 46 Yariv, Aharon, General 68, 77 Yemen 67 Yishuv 12, 26, 59 Yisraeli, Haim, Assistant Defense Minister 102, 107 Yosef, Dov 645 Yoseftal, Santa 55 Yosephtal, Giora 9, 26 Yugoslavia 92, 93; troop pullout from Sharma al-Sheikh area 94
War of Independence, 1948 1, 3, 104, 116 Washington: attitude towards Israeli attack against Syria 77; demanding
Zafran, Meir 24 Zionist entity 4 Zionist Movement 1, 12 Zionist state 56
eBooks – at www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk
A library at your fingertips!
eBooks are electronic versions of printed books. You can store them on your PC/laptop or browse them online. They have advantages for anyone needing rapid access to a wide variety of published, copyright information. eBooks can help your research by enabling you to bookmark chapters, annotate text and use instant searches to find specific words or phrases. Several eBook files would fit on even a small laptop or PDA. NEW: Save money by eSubscribing: cheap, online access to any eBook for as long as you need it.
Annual subscription packages We now offer special low-cost bulk subscriptions to packages of eBooks in certain subject areas. These are available to libraries or to individuals. For more information please contact
[email protected] We’re continually developing the eBook concept, so keep up to date by visiting the website.
www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk
