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

163. Letter From Secretary of State Herter to Prime Minister Ben Gurion¹

Washington, August 4, 1960.

Dear Mr. Prime Minister: Responsive to your message of June 9,² as well as Mrs. Meir’s visit to Washington, I have reviewed most carefully the problem of Israel’s security. I know how deeply you are concerned with this subject. So also does the President to whose attention I have brought this matter. As you must have gathered during your visit, all of us here have a most sympathetic interest in Israel’s welfare and an unflagging desire to be as helpful as we can, consonant with the mutual interests of both our countries. I can assure you that this spirit has governed our consideration of this response to your June 9 message.

Your concern is to assure the survival of Israel. In today’s world the task of maintaining an appropriate defensive posture is assuming Herculean proportions. In addition to the enormous financial outlays required, military weaponry is making such phenomenal advances that new weapons frequently become outdated before they can attain normal production. Each new advance seems to exceed its predecessor in death-dealing capability. The conclusion is clear. In modern warfare there can be no victor; there may even be no survival. It behooves all of us, therefore, to dedicate ourselves as never before to the settlement of mankind’s differences through peaceful means.

Some speak of a nuclear stalemate among the Great Powers. It is my impression and my hope that in the Near East a similar, albeit non-nuclear, stalemate has developed. If this be true, no one Near Eastern country can find it profitable to attack its neighbor. I should like to stress that in addition to the defensive competence of the countries themselves, there are other deterrents such as the force of world opinion focused through the United Nations. I would hope also that each small nation in that area, including Israel, could find assurance in the historic role our country has played in opposing aggression and championing the cause of freedom. Our earnestness in this regard was dramatically demonstrated in the Near Eastern area only two years ago.

While our country has not shirked its responsibilities in assisting small nations including those in the Near East to preserve their territorial integrity and independence, we have at the same time sought in the Near East to reduce the danger of hostilities. In accordance with this aim we have, as you know, steadfastly followed a policy of not becoming a major supplier of arms to that area. To depart from that policy would in our view be to contribute to an intensification of an arms race to the detriment of the states concerned. Israel’s request for Hawk missiles would in our view be a case in point. A question to be pondered by us both is whether it would be wise for any country to introduce such spectacular weaponry into the Near Eastern area. While the Hawk system is purely defensive, it is easy to imagine that some other outside power, anxious to exacerbate tensions in the Near East, would yield to the importunities of Israel’s apprehensive neighbors and equip them with missile weaponry, including perhaps missiles with surface-to-surface capability. In this event, since the Hawk system cannot defend them against a missile attack, Israel’s acquisition of Hawk missiles would be largely wasted time and a heavy expense. A new spiral in the Near East arms race would have taken place—without benefit to anyone except an outside power which has long coveted that area and which stands to benefit by Israel and Israel’s neighbors dissipating their limited resources on unproductive and fabulously expensive weaponry.

You may be sure, Mr. Prime Minister, that the President and I recognize the vital importance of adequate levels of self-defense, for Israel as well as ourselves. We have been gratified that Israel has been able to obtain elsewhere its essential requirements in such heavy items as tanks and aircraft. We have noted also Israel’s own achievements in military production. Meanwhile, we have been pleased that in a modest way our country has from time to time been able to make available small quantities of defensive arms. In this connection I should like to emphasize the significance of the electronics equipment which our Government in its note of May 23³ offered to make available to Israel. These aircraft detection facilities, which represent a substantial portion of the items requested in Israel’s February 9 note,⁴ are of extremely advanced design and of a quality possessed by only a few nations. I might note also that the magnitude of this offer in financial terms is some six to ten times larger than any previous United States military transaction with Israel.

This brings us to the problem of the large financial burden which defense expenditures pose for the Government of Israel. As you know, our Government quite understandably has over the years refrained from extending direct or indirect contributions to Israel’s defense budget. Our view has been that legitimate defense needs are only one facet of an economy which our Government studies in assessing a country’s eligibility, under our criteria, for economic assistance. Nevertheless, there can be little doubt that the substantial assistance which our Government has extended to Israel since its birth—in the neighborhood of $700,000,000—has contributed greatly to Israel’s ability to shoulder its defense burden, including the purchase of its principal military requirements elsewhere. This year again our Government has sought to treat Israel generously in the assistance field. I am told that the total magnitude of aid during the fiscal year just concluded exceeded the annual average over the years since 1948.

During our discussion with Mrs. Meir, Under Secretary Dillon and I noted that the Congress has not yet completed its deliberations concerning foreign aid appropriations for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1960. Many uncertainties exist, both as to the magnitude of the funds which we shall have at our disposal and as to administrative strictures which may be included in the Congressional legislation. Nevertheless, both Mr. Dillon and I reiterated our determination to consider most sympathetically your Government’s requests, particularly such applications which Israel may submit in accordance with our Development Loan Fund criteria.

Again, Mr. Prime Minister, let me assure you that the spirit of helpfulness which our country has displayed toward Israel since the latter’s birth continues undimmed. We hope that you, Mrs. Meir, Ambassador Harman and other dedicated representatives of your vigorous young state will continue to confer freely with us as frequently as occasion requires. Meanwhile, I would hope that this frank expression of views will prove helpful to you in understanding the importance our Government attaches to peace and stability in the Middle East and to the role which Israel can play in the attainment of that worthy objective.⁵

With warm personal regards,

Most sincerely,

Christian A. Herter⁶

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 684A.86B/8–460. Secret; Personal and Confidential. Transmitted to Tel Aviv in telegram 89, August 4, which is the source text. According to another copy of telegram 89, which was approved in the White House on August 4, it was drafted by Meyer. (Ibid., 784A.5/8–460)
2. See Document 151.
3. See footnote 2, Document 148.
4. For a summary of this note, see Document 122.
5. On August 6, Reid reported that he had delivered the letter to Ben Gurion the previous day. The Prime Minister read the letter and remarked to Reid that he wanted to study it carefully. The Ambassador minimized his own comments and noted that Ben Gurion was not surprised by the contents of the letter or his spirits dampened. (Telegram 119; Department of State, Central Files, 684A.86B/8–660)
6. Telegram 89 bears this typed signature.