The Battle of the Letters, 1963: John F. Kennedy, David Ben-Gurion, Levi Eshkol, and the U.S. Inspections of Dimona

A day after NSAM 231 was issued, the State Department began to implement it by asking Ambassador Barbour to inform Prime Minister Ben-Gurion that the U.S. government sought his “assent to semi-annual repeat semi-annua1 visits to Dimona perhaps May and November, with full access to all parts and instruments in the facility, by qualified U.S. scientists.” This message, along with a parallel demarche to the Israeli ambassador, was the first salvo in what would develop into the toughest American-Israeli confrontation over the Israeli nuclear program.

On 2 April, at the end of a two-hour discussion with Ben-Gurion on the refugee problem, Barbour raised the matter of Dimona inspections. Ben-Gurion said that he wanted to postpone the discussion until after Passover. When Barbour noted that the last inspection had been limited to 45 minutes, an evidently surprised Foreign Minister Meir replied that the short visit had been the decision of the U.S. inspectors. Barbour disagreed.

To underline the point more sharply, on 4 April, the next day, Assistant Secretary Talbot summoned Israeli Ambassador Harman and presented him with a demarche on the inspections. Documentation on this episode is not available, but it is cited in the “Brief on Developments Re the Dimona Reactor” [See Document 1].

This is the seven-page Israeli record of an unscheduled meeting between Kennedy and Shimon Peres, then Israel's deputy minister of defense and chief of the Israeli nuclear program, at the White House on 2 April 1963. Visiting Washington for talks on the purchase of Hawk missiles, Peres stopped by the White House to meet with presidential adviser Myer Feldman, who was central to policy on Israel, with a say on all decisions involving Arab-Israeli matters that had domestic implications. Accompanying Peres were Ambassador Harman and Deputy Chief of Mission Mordechai Gazit.

From the White House perspective, the timing of Peres’s visit could not have been better. With all of the State Department, AEC, and White House discussion over the previous weeks, Kennedy had an opportunity to meet with Peres – known to the U.S. as the key man on the Israeli nuclear program – in person and directly convey his concerns about nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. That is what happened. Apparently by pre-arrangement between Feldman and Kennedy, the president ran into them in the corridor and invited them for a brief introductory meeting at the Oval Office. In the half-hour conversation Kennedy interrogated Peres on Israel’s nuclear activities and intentions. It was in response to Kennedy’s question that Peres invoked – for the first time to the United States – the pledge that would subsequently become Israel's public formula for nuclear opacity (pages 3-4 in the document). Here is a translation of this exchange as recorded on page 3 of the Israeli document:

Kennedy: You know that we follow very closely the discovery of any nuclear development in the region. This could create a very dangerous situation. For this reason, we monitor your nuclear effort. What could you tell me about this?

Peres: I can tell you most clearly that we will not introduce nuclear weapons to the region, and certainly we will not be the first.

Years later, Peres revealed that his answer was an improvisation in response to an unexpected situation. Not expecting to see the president, and certainly not to be asked that question by him, Peres had to come up with a response that did not involve revealing state secrets or telling an outright lie. What he said, however, was consistent with, and probably influenced by, the approach that Ben-Gurion had already been taking in meetings with Israeli newspaper editors – that Israel would not be the first to “introduce nuclear weapons” in the region.[3]

As significant as Peres’s declaration was, the understanding on the U.S. side was apparently different. According to Feldman, Peres “had given an unequivocal assurance that Israel would not do anything in this field unless it finds that other countries in the area are involved in it.” “Not do anything” has a different meaning than “not introduce.” Thus, President Kennedy continued his effort to prevent Israel from reaching the point where it would have the capability to “introduce” the bomb.

In the spring of 1963 some top officials in Israel, primarily Mossad chief Isser Harel with the support of Foreign Minister Golda Meir, initiated a public campaign (via leaks to the Israeli media) about German scientists in Egypt involved in developing ballistic missiles and radiological weapons, possibly even nuclear weapons. Reinforcing NSAM 231 and raising the urgency, State Department intelligence chief Thomas Hughes asked DCI McCone to issue a special NIE on “advanced weapons programs” in both the UAR and Israel. Hughes asked McCone for a “comprehensive round-up of available intelligence on UAR and Israeli developmental programs and capabilities in the fields of nuclear weapons, missiles, and bacteriological, chemical, and radiological warfare,” as well as the nature of any foreign private or governmental assistance in those areas.

Having waited more than two weeks for an answer from Ben-Gurion, Secretary of State Dean Rusk asked Ambassador Barbour to “press” for an “affirmative reply” to the U.S. request for semi-annual inspections of Dimona.

Not having answered the U.S. request about Dimona, on 26 April 1963, Ben-Gurion tried to change the subject in a long letter to Kennedy. Prompting the letter was the recent Egyptian, Syrian, and Iraqi Arab Federation Proclamation on 17 April calling for a military union to produce the “liberation of Palestine.” Ignoring Kennedy’s request for bi-annual visits at Dimona, Ben-Gurion elaborated in his letter on regional stability and Israeli security, and in response proposed a joint U.S.-Soviet security guarantee for the territorial integrity of all states of the Middle East

In reply Ben-Gurion’s 26 April letter, Kennedy assured the Israeli prime minister that he shared his concern but was puzzled by the proposal for a joint declaration with Soviet Premier Khrushchev. Such an action, he believed, would only add to Soviet “prestige” in a region where it had made trouble, for example, as a supplier of arms. Kennedy also tried to direct the exchange to his original concern, telling Ben-Gurion that he was much less worried about an “early Arab attack” than “a successful development of advanced offensive systems which, as you say, could not be dealt with by presently available means.” Indirectly raising his concern about the Israeli nuclear program, Kennedy noted that he had “expressed before [his] deep personal conviction that reciprocal and competitive development of such weapons would dangerously threaten the stability of the area. I believe that we should consider carefully together how such a trend can be forestalled.”

Citing Embassy reporting, the CIA’s analysts implied that Ben-Gurion was more interested in pursuing a nuclear capability than in receiving security guarantees. The prime minister saw that U.S. proposals for arms control in the Middle East could place Israel at “such a disadvantage” that it could raise the danger of war. Moreover, “Ben-Gurion stated that neither a guarantee nor any alliance is sufficient for Israel's protection without adequate independent strength.” Accordingly, the Knesset “adopted a resolution to increase Israel’s ‘deterrent strength.’”

Responding simultaneously to Kennedy’s request for better intelligence and to INR’s recent request for a “comprehensive round-up” of recent intelligence on the Israeli and UAR advanced weapons programs, the intelligence community presented a Special National Intelligence Estimate in early May focusing exclusively on unconventional weapons in the Middle East. While this revised estimate included much more data on Israeli nuclear activities, some of it excised, it was not enough to change the overall conclusions of the January 1963 NIE. In resemblance to the original one, it concluded that “Israel intends at least to put itself in a position to be able to produce a limited number of weapons relatively quickly after a decision to do so” and that “unless deterred by outside pressure [the Israelis] will attempt to produce a weapon sometime in the next several years.” Unless they had a secret source that shed light on Israeli intentions, the analysts may have made their case by inference.

However, the conclusions of the SNIE were more specific and definitive than the January estimate: “We believe that in the most favorable circumstances Israel could detonate a domestically developed nuclear device by late 1965, but a more likely date would be sometime in 1966. Developing the device into a weapon which could be delivered by aircraft would require a year or two more (1967- 1968), though this period could be virtually eliminated if Israel obtained from another country detailed and tested weapons designs.” Despite these strong conclusions, the analysts admitted that “we have no evidence to confirm the existence of plutonium separation facilities.” Furthermore, the SNIE, like the previous estimate, assumed the production of a “limited number” of weapons would require a “decision.” No such decision, tacit or otherwise, could be taken, in the absence of a plutonium separation plant, although the Dimona facility was large enough to accommodate one. The SNIE’s authors took it for granted that testing would be required, whether underground or atmospheric (the latter was ruled out when Israel signed the 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty). Both methods had their limitations, for example, the fallout hazards created by atmospheric testing. Moreover, before it could safely test a device, Israel would need enough fissile material for at least one more “so as not to be left without any after the test.” In addition, testing would be delayed because Dimona would produce spent fuel at a relatively slow rate.

By contrast to Israel, the UAR, “alone or in combination with other Arab States, does not have the capability of producing a nuclear weapon in the foreseeable future.” Both sides, however, were interested in surface-to-surface missiles, but if they developed such systems their “purely military significance is likely to be modest for some time.” The UAR would not be able to arm its SSM’s with nuclear warheads, but Israeli missiles could be nuclear-armed in a shorter time period (“several years”), thus increasing Israeli “military superiority.” While Israel’s motive in acquiring a nuclear capability would be “primarily defensive,” once the Israelis had the bomb that could “encourage them to be bolder in the use of their conventional resources both diplomatic and military in their confrontation with the Arabs.”

As this paper was being prepared, the U.S. began to learn about the deal that Israel made with the French company Dassault for the development of a short-range surface-to-surface missile.

On 5 May, Ambassador Barbour met and discussed the matter of semi-annual U.S. visits to Dimona with Ben-Gurion. The record of this meeting has not been released, but the State Department reaction was that it “appears here [the Prime Minister] may now be attempting [to] throw question of Dimona inspections into arena of bargaining for things Israel wants from us, such as security guarantee.” Whatever Ben-Gurion had in mind, Kennedy and his advisers objected to making such a linkage and wanted Barbour to remind Ben-Gurion that he and other senior officials had approved the idea of inspections in the past unconditionally. Apparently, Ben-Gurion had argued against inspection on the grounds that the U.S. was “not insisting on inspection in the Arab countries”, to which Rusk advised Barbour to say that Washington had good intelligence on Arab nuclear efforts “and these do not amount to a serious program.”

With the White House under greater domestic pressure to fashion a Middle Eastern policy that was more “consonant with Israeli desires,” President Kennedy (no doubt with 1964 presidential election in mind) wanted to reach an “accommodation” to those pressures “without seriously impairing our other interests in the area.” In a memo to Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Grant acknowledged that such an accommodation “would be extremely difficult to accomplish,” not least because President Kennedy was concerned about the “arms escalation” in the region, especially the Israeli nuclear program. Consistent with the concern about domestic politics, Grant noted that Deputy Counsel Mayer (Mike) Feldman had a new political role at the White House, as the primary staffer to approve all State Department telegrams concerning Israel and Arab-Israeli issues that had domestic political implications. Grant further mentioned that Kennedy had asked Rusk that the State Department draft a presidential letter to Egypt President, Gamal Abdul Nasser, to initiate dialogue on area security and arms limitations.

In a lengthy and highly personal response (9 typed pages) to Kennedy’s 5 May letter, Ben-Gurion continued his earlier effort to change the conversation but also to explain indirectly the purpose of Dimona. On the surface, Ben-Gurion’s letter seems to ignore the issue of Dimona entirely, as if he either overlooked or dismissed Kennedy’s letter and the recent U.S. requests for visits to Dimona. Instead, in the tone of an old statesman who had seen it all, Ben-Gurion wrote about his impressions of Nasser and his Pan-Arabism, and then made an analogy between Nasser and other contemporary Arab leaders with Hitler, writing:

“knowing them I am convinced that they are capable of following the Nazi example. Nasser is in fact adopting the National-Socialist ideology of the Nazis. For many years the civilized world did not take seriously Hitler's statement that one of his aims was the worldwide extermination of the Jewish people. I have no doubt that a similar thing might happen to Jews in Israel if Nasser succeeded in defeating our army.”

Ben-Gurion all but linked the possibility of another Holocaust to his request for security guarantees to Israel, asserting that the best way to avoid a cataclysm was joint action by the two superpowers. Acknowledging Kennedy’s view that such joint action was politically impossible he suggested a U.S-Israel security agreement, U.S. arms supply equal to what the Arabs were receiving, turning Jordan’s West Bank into a demilitarized zone, and “a plan of general disarmament between Israel and the Arab states under a system of mutual and international inspection and control.” Ben-Gurion, however, doubted the practicality of the last idea.

When top Israeli diplomat Ambassador Gideon Rafael (the Foreign Ministry’s deputy director general), saw the draft, he advised against sending it. Rafael argued that the letter “looks sick” and that “the Prime Minister must not speak about something that seems sick.” Ben-Gurion usually rejected editorial advice and insisted on the tone and the length. Therefore, why did he send such a strange letter?[4]

Besides failing to address Kennedy’s requests, the letter proposed ideas that looked utterly unrealistic. One way to explain this puzzle was that Ben-Gurion meant to suggest to Kennedy his rationale for the Dimona project, without saying so explicitly. By reminding Kennedy that another Holocaust was possible, he effectively conveyed why Israel needed a nuclear deterrent. Dimona was the ultimate security assurance for Israel, because no external security guarantees were feasible or credible.

Almost in parallel to his letter of 12 May, in which he totally ignored Kennedy’s requests on Dimona, Ben-Gurion met Ambassador Barbour to revisit the Dimona problem. In reviewing the request for visits, Ben-Gurion asked if Washington intended semi-annual visits to Egyptian sites. After Barbour observed that there was nothing there to see, Ben-Gurion stated his disagreement with the U.S. “assessment [of] Egyptian nuclear programs.” He concluded that he would consult his cabinet but observed that it was to Israel’s advantage if the Arab governments were “worried rather than reassured on Israeli nuclear program.”

Presenting the President with the State Department scenario for talks with Israel and the UAR on security and disarmament issues, in a response to NSAM 231, Komer argued that Israel would go ahead with a nuclear program unless Washington provided security guarantees. Consistent with this, the State Department suggested that Washington send a special emissary to both Israel and the UAR with an offer that linked security assurances to a nuclear and missile stand-still. The fact that Ben-Gurion had insisted on inspections of both Israel and UAR nuclear facilities, Komer believed, provided the U.S. with an “opening.” Komer further saw the attached State Department proposal as a “good opening bid” for security assurances tied to a nuclear/missile standstill agreement.

Kennedy did not allow Ben-Gurion to change the conversation into a discussion of “another Holocaust.” Kennedy’s new letter to Ben-Gurion, dated 17 May, categorically separated the two issues, i.e., the question of Israel’s existential security, and the matter of Dimona. Kennedy ignored for the time being the existential issues raised in Ben-Gurion’s 12 May letter and focused solely on Ben-Gurion’s oral response about the Dimona visits to Ambassador Barbour on 14 May.

Based on their meeting in May 1961, Kennedy rhetorically suggested that he was sure that both would agree “that there is no more urgent business for the whole world than the control of nuclear weapons.” Both must agree, he wrote, “that the dangers in the proliferation of national nuclear weapons system are so obvious that I am sure I need not repeat them here.” Worried about the impact on both world and regional stability of an Israeli nuclear weapons capability, Kennedy warned Ben-Gurion that such development would make the Soviets more involved in the Middle East and would almost certainly lead other larger countries “to follow suit.”

It was in that letter that Kennedy elevated the request for bi-annual visits at Dimona to a level that was very close to an ultimatum. Kennedy observed that as strong as the U.S. commitment to Israel’s security was, it would “seriously jeopardized in the public opinion of this country” if it was thought that “this Government was unable to obtain reliable information on a subject as vital to peace as the question of the character of Israel’s effort in the nuclear field.” This ultimatum-like language remained in all subsequent letters.

In this general discussion of French foreign policy between President Kennedy and Foreign Minister Maurice Couve de Murville, the Israeli nuclear program made several appearances. According to the State Department version of the discussion, after Kennedy and de Murville spoke about the German nuclear problem, Kennedy suggested that because the Israelis had acquired uranium the Germans might be able to do the same; de Murville commented that “even if the Israelis get an atomic device they would be able to make trouble but they would not be able to wage nuclear war in the real sense of the word” (although perhaps the people targeted by the attack would have a different perspective).

The French Foreign Ministry’s compilation, Documents Diplomatiques Français. provides a fuller and more interesting account of the meeting, especially of the brief discussion of Israel during two different points.[5] Here follows a rendition into English of the French original, showing how Kennedy shifted the discussion from the German nuclear problem to Israel.[6]

Kennedy: It is the same problem as Israel. I would like you to discuss this very thoroughly with the Secretary of State, because it is at present a grave concern.

Couve de Murville: I totally agree with you on this point, but the Israelis could produce at most one to two bombs that could not be considered as true weapons of war. It would lead to Middle East unrest, but it would not be a real threat to the survival of the human race.

Later in the conversation, according to the U.S. version, de Murville stated that France “had made a mistake in having furnished Israel with plutonium.” The French, however, had provided only a small quantity of plutonium, for lab research only, and that was probably not what de Murville was talking about. It is possible that the U.S. interpreter/notetaker did not fully understand what de Murville had said or that the final U.S. version, especially Kennedy’s frank comments, was edited beyond recognition. Here follows a rendition into English of the French original.[7]

De Murville: As far as we are concerned, we have taken all the necessary precautions. We are committed to supplying [the Israelis] with certain quantities of uranium for their reactor, but they must return it as soon as they have processed it, so that they do not have the possibility of extracting the plutonium. Sadly, the Israelis are likely to find uncontrolled [sources] of uranium alloys. It is a question on which I wish to speak with Mr. Rusk, for we agree with you on the danger of this subject.

Kennedy: I am pleased because if Israel had atomic weapons, we would be blamed equally, you for furnishing uranium, and we for the financial aid given to Israel. The position of that country is stupid because it gives a pretext to the Russians, who are retreating in the region, to indict us before world opinion, and perhaps not without reason,

Kennedy’s letter of 19 May must have made it clear to Ben-Gurion that he had to respond to Kennedy’s specific request on Dimona. In his reply, dated 27 May, Ben-Gurion started with the same peaceful research narrative that he had used to characterize the Dimona project from the very beginning, including during his meeting with Kennedy in May 1961. In response to the request for bi-annual visits, Ben-Gurion evaded the bi-annual issue and instead simply referred to the past American visits to Dimona, “such as have already taken place,” but asked for a delay, arguing that there would be nothing to see until the early 1964 “start-up” of the reactor. “At present, nothing is going on there except building construction.” According to a report to Bundy from the State Department’s Executive Secretary, that reply was “less than fully satisfactory.” Komer later reported that Assistant Secretary Talbot and his associates saw the letter “as a step backward on terms of access to Dimona. More importantly, by postponing the proposed inspection to at least end-1963, the Israelis kept this bargaining counter in play for forthcoming negotiation.”

Ambassador Barbour interpreted Ben-Gurion’s letter more favorably, arguing, for example, that it “accepted [the] principle of continuing visits,” gave “assurances in writing at highest level as to the peaceful nature of the reactor” and dropped the notion of parallel visits to Israeli and Egyptian sites.

In a draft of a memorandum to be sent to the national security adviser, McGeorge Bundy, officials at the State Department’s science bureau explained that Ben-Gurion’s desire for annual visits “would not meet our minimum intelligence requirements to satisfy ourselves … as to Israel’s intentions;” nor was it consistent with IAEA inspection standards, which Washington supported: If the Dimona reactor was for research only, its spent fuel would need to be discharged every two years, “but approximately at six months intervals if the object was to produce a maximum of irradiated fuel for separation into weapons grade plutonium.” Hence, to monitor the use of the reactor fuel, Dimona would require two inspections annually. In addition, a visit would be needed before the reactor went critical because once that happened some sections of the reactor become inaccessible.

As a partial compromise, the State Department proposed a mid-summer 1963 visit, one in June 1964, and then visits every 6 months thereafter, with access to all areas of the site, including related operations that might be somewhere else, such as a reprocessing plant. The memo included the draft text for the Kennedy letter to Ben-Gurion that was sent a few days later.

Replying to Ben-Gurion’s letter of 27 May, Kennedy respectfully but firmly insisted on the need to create a system of regular bi-annual U.S. visits to Dimona. Like the previous letter, this one included the same ultimatum-like warning: Washington’s “commitment to and support of Israel could be seriously jeopardized if it should be thought that we are unable to obtain reliable information on a subject as vital” as Israel’s intentions in the nuclear field. For this reason, the letter insisted on a schedule along the lines suggested by the State Department, that is, the first visit during that summer, before the reactor turned critical, then the next summer (June 1964), and after that at intervals of six months.

As Kennedy’s letter arrived in Tel Aviv, on 16 June, Prime Minister Ben-Gurion resigned; he cited unspecified “personal reasons,”[8] although the CIA believed that his conciliatory policy toward West Germany. was a cause. Ambassador Barbour recommended that once a new Israel government had formed, the U.S. demarche be sent in a redrafted form. He further observed that the Dimona inspection was a controversial issue when Ben-Gurion presented it to the cabinet in late May.

The State Department drafted a new letter on Dimona to new Prime Minister Levi Eshkol. After congratulating him for assuming office and mentioning his earlier exchanges with Ben-Gurion on Dimona, Kennedy used virtually the same text of his undelivered 16 June letter to Ben-Gurion in the letter to Eshkol. It included the same warning that the “American commitment to and support of Israel” could be “seriously jeopardized” if Israel did not let the United States obtain “reliable information” about Israel's effort in the nuclear field. Kennedy suggested the same schedule of visits to Dimona that he conveyed to Ben Gurion: the first one in the summer of 1963, then a year later, and then at intervals of six months.

In his interim reply to the communication of 4 July, Eshkol told Kennedy that he needed time to review the entire issue involving the Dimona project before giving a substantive response, which some in the White House saw as an attempt to treat inspections as a “bargaining card” for security guarantees. In his conversation with Barbour, Eshkol mentioned his great “surprise” (“searching for the right word,” he added) over Kennedy’s near-ultimatum statement that the U.S. commitment to and support of Israel could be “seriously jeopardized.” While he hoped that U.S-Israeli friendship would grow, “Israel would do what it had to do for its national security and to safeguard its sovereign rights.” Barbour assured him that Kennedy’s statement was “factual” because critics of strong U.S.-Israel relations could complicate the diplomatic relationship.

Later in the discussion, Eshkol asked a question that Ben-Gurion had never openly raised: how would Washington react to an Israeli proposal to “consult in advance” with the United States “in the event that, sometime in the distant future,” Middle Eastern developments made it necessary for Israel to “embark on a nuclear weapons program.”

Notwithstanding the hypothetical language, this was the first time an Israeli prime minister had treated Dimona as a security asset. Barbour replied that he could not answer such a question and had no idea what the United States reaction might be. Noting that “it should be sufficient for word of sovereign state to be acceptable,” Eshkol asked whether the United States expected to inspect India’s nuclear developments. Barbour did not directly answer the question but assured the prime minister that the U.S. concern about nonproliferation was broader than the problem of Israel, although the “introduction” of nuclear weapons into the Middle East would be “especially grave.”

This memo records a meeting with John J. McCloy, the President’s envoy on Middle East arms limitations upon his return from Cairo earlier that month, in which Kennedy and his Middle East advisers reviewed the possibilities for developing inspection arrangements for nuclear facilities in the UAR and Israel. So far President Nasser had resisted inspections, in part because, as he argued [in his conversation with McCloy on 27 June], Egypt had nothing to show, which meant that McCloy had to call off his planned visit to Israel. After Kennedy asked about Nasser’s statements about pre-emptive attacks on Dimona, Ambassador John Badeau observed that “our past assurances to the Arabs, that the reactor is not producing such weapons have helped” to calm the situation.

On Israel, Kennedy suggested he needed to apply more pressure on Eshkol (“keep up with the correspondence” on Dimona) but “wondered how one could prevent Israel from manufacturing nuclear weapons.” CIA Director McCone observed that the “first inspection should reveal much about Israeli intentions.” If the inspection showed that Israel was building a “chemical separation plant, this suggests they may have in mind making nuclear weapons.” This statement from the CIA director manifested the genuine uncertainty, even ignorance, about Israel’s secret plans for a separation plant. Later, McCone said that he was “satisfied that there is no other nuclear complex in Israel at the present time.”

McCone also briefed the group on the French-Israeli nuclear agreement, which specified that “plutonium” or spent fuel from the Dimona plant was to be “retained by the French.” McCone said senior French diplomat Charles Lucet had “expressed concern” because the Israelis were acquiring unsafeguarded fuel (possibly referring to purchases from Argentina According to Lucet, these actions had “require[ed] the French to do some preemptive buying.” This could be a reference to French efforts to prevent the Israelis from buying uranium from Gabon.

Harrison Symmes, one of the department’s top Middle East specialists, informed Deputy Assistant Secretary Grant that the British were strongly interested in keeping “in close touch” with Washington on the Israeli nuclear problem especially because they were “disturbed by the recent conjunction of high-level U.S. and French expressions of concern” emanating from both Rusk and Couve de Murville. While no new information was available on Israeli intentions or the specific direction of Israeli technological development, “we remain glad to share our thoughts fully with the U.K.” Washington was also seeking information from the French on their safeguards arrangements, but it was not clear how “forthcoming” they would be because of their own internal divisions.

To plumb U.S. thinking and to share British intelligence, Embassy Counselor John Killick met with State Department officials with whom he discussed a recent series of “disturbing signs,” including explicit statements on nuclear capabilities by the Israeli Chief of Staff Lt. General Zvi Tzur, Prime Minister Eshkol, and the Israeli ambassador to the United Kingdom. For example, the latter had told British Foreign Secretary Lord Home that without security guarantees Israel would have to resort to “new deterrent weapons." In light of such statements, Killick observed that the “fundamental question” was “how Israel is to be deterred from nuclear weapons development.”

Acting Assistant Secretary Grant assured Killick that Washington and London were operating on the “same factual and intelligence basis.” Neither country had “conclusive proof” that Israel had nuclear weapons plans, but Washington believed that it was developing a “technological capacity which could be devoted to weapons production on short notice.” To prevent the situation from getting out of hand, the administration was taking various steps, such as discussing procedures to “regularize” inspections of Dimona and supporting the goal of placing UAR and Israeli nuclear activities under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards.

For Grant, it was important to make sure that the Israelis “see clearly that were they to go the weapons path the Arabs would have to follow and this would open the door for the Soviets, perhaps on the Cuba pattern.” He further believed that the Israelis were using “talk of a nuclear deterrent” as part of a calculated effort to induce Washington to offer a security guarantee. “On this point, we would agree with the UK that a unilateral security guarantee to Israel should not be considered.”

After about seven weeks of highly intense consultations, Eshkol finally handed to Ambassador Barbour his reply letter to Kennedy’s letter of early July, Eshkol agreed to a Dimona visit in late 1963, before the reactor reached criticality, and suggested that a follow-up visit in mid-1964 could be discussed. Eshkol acknowledge Kennedy’s request for bi-annual visits to Dimona, but without making any commitment apart from a general expression of confidence that agreement on a future schedule could be reached. Noting Kennedy’s concern about the reactor’s fuel cycle, Eshkol stated that the reactor fuel was French “and is fully controlled by the French government, to whom it has to be returned after irradiation.” Barbour later commented that Eshkol “has not had an easy time in obtaining agreement of his colleagues to the line taken in this letter, a line which represents a major effort on his part … to meet U.S. anxieties on this important problem.”

Discussing the issue further, Eshkol said that his mind was not yet made up, but for the time being he asked that Nasser not be told about future U.S. visits to Dimona: it was better that he “not be completely assured that Israel is not working toward nuclear weapons production.” Ambassador Barbour cautioned the prime minister of the danger that Nasser might conclude that Israel was getting the bomb and that it was necessary for the UAR to make a “preventive attack” lest Israel strike first.”

In a memo to Kennedy, Under Secretary of State George Ball observed that Eshkol had not agreed to the summer 1963 visit that Kennedy had requested and did not consent to semi-annual visits beginning in 1964. In effect, Ball suggested that Kennedy reply as if Eshkol had made those concessions, a suggestion that Komer endorsed. That Eshkol objected to U.S. briefings to the UAR about the inspections was a serious problem because of the “deterrent effect” that the information would have, for example, by assuring Nasser about Israeli capabilities.

Kennedy’s appreciative reply (which he personally approved) to Eshkol did not mention the divergences over the timing and frequency of the Dimona visits, but assumed there was basic agreement on “regular visits.” In the instructions, Barbour was asked to tell Eshkol that, seeing as he had not made up his mind over whether Nasser should be informed of the U.S. visits, that Kennedy believed that “there are real advantages for security in setting to rest any fears which might otherwise lead to nuclear weapons acquisitions efforts by others in the area.” The ambassador was asked to assure Eshkol that a reply to Ben-Gurion’s letter of 12 May on security guarantees to Israel was forthcoming, but Kennedy would remain unwilling to make “explicit” guarantees.

The British provided more intelligence on the Israeli nuclear program, this time from a source at the French Embassy in Tel Aviv. According to the source, the French government had toughened its inspection/safeguard procedures, although the Embassy did not know the details, having been “cut out” of the process. The Embassy source did know, however, that the numbers of French workers at Dimona had been exaggerated (not “200 families,” but 60 workers). While the Israelis were “miffed” that the French were “suspicious” of their nuclear plans, the latter took a position comparable to Washington’s: recognizing that Israel was then “in no position to manufacture nuclear weapons,” but that the program had to be watched. Nevertheless, the French believed that the Israelis were “exploiting doubt regarding [their] intentions as a factor in the political game.”

In a conversation with Embassy Counselor Nathan Barnes, Teddy Kollek, director-general of the prime minister’s office (and subsequently the long-serving mayor of Jerusalem), noted that before Eskhol made his decision on the U.S. Dimona inspections, he had spent “hours with scientists” and made trips to the reactor site. Kollek told Barnes that Eshkol consulted on the text with former Prime Minister Ben Gurion, who remained unenthusiastic about it. Kollek acknowledged that there was a “spectrum of opinions” about the U.S. visits, with Deputy Defense Minister Shimon Peres representing one “extreme” because he believed that as a “sovereign nation” Israel did not have to accede to inspections by a country that had played no role in the construction of Dimona. The other extreme was exemplified by Ambassador Harman, who believed that the requests should be met because the United States was a “real and valuable friend.”

In comments on the U.S.-Israel defense relationship generally, Kollek discussed the nuclear weapons option. His perception was that as a “friend” of the United States, Washington would be sympathetic if Israel faced an “emergency” but would not “necessarily … go to war” on its behalf. Nevertheless, Kollek believed that a “closer … relationship would tend to undercut still widely held view that, even though no plans now for manufacturing nuclear weapons, would be short-sighted for Israel not to move toward position where it could exercise option quickly if later circumstances required.” According to Barnes, “it seems clear that [Kollek] did not consider abandonment of [that] option to be irrevocable decision.”

This record of a meeting with John Killick is somewhat ambiguous but it confirms that the Israelis had agreed to a “third visit prior to the activation of the reactor” (That did not happen; see Document 46) U.S. diplomat Rodger Davies correctly observed that agreement on semi-annual visits had not been reached. The goal was a “thorough” inspection of the site, including the “plutonium separation plant,” which may have been a reference to the pilot plant that Ben-Gurion had told Kennedy about in their 1961 Waldorf-Astoria meeting. Davies cited Israeli assurances about Dimona’s “peaceful purposes,” which he said, “we are inclined to believe,” although that was not entirely consistent with the more nuanced view that James Grant had offered to John Killick a few weeks earlier.

This report, produced and kept within intelligence channels, provided highlights of the U.S. inspection visit that took place on 18 January 1964. The first such visit since the fall of 1962, it was a consequence of the pressure Kennedy had applied. And as the AEC had preferred, the inspectors did not have AEC safeguards backgrounds (instead, experience in reactor development and arms control. Both the U.S. and the Israelis kept the fact of the visit highly secret and no leaks to the press appeared. The findings raised no suspicions of weapons work, but it was “the impression of the team that the Dimona site and the equipment located there represented an ambitious project for a country of Israel's capabilities.” A key development, according to the Israelis, was that the reactor had gone critical on 26 December 1963, only a few weeks earlier. Notably, however, the Hebrew website of the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission marks July 1963 – six months earlier – as the date when the Dimona reactor started its operations. Another noticeable Israeli disclosure to the visitors was that work on the pilot reprocessing plant had been delayed, indicating that the intelligence community was aware of it if it had not been earlier.

The full report by the inspectors was quite detailed and technical, covering every phase of the visit to Dimona on 18 January and the discussion with Israeli officials and reactor staff.[9] For example, the report cited a discussion of Dimona’s total cost, in the range of $60 million. When managing director Mannes Pratt discussed stocks of uranium concentrate, he acknowledged that 20 tons came from a foreign source but would not disclose the source because it was classified. That was probably a reference to the supply from Argentina.

The status of the pilot reprocessing plant was the subject of some discussion. Apparently higher than estimated costs had led to some delay, but Eshkol’s science adviser, Professor Ephraim Katchaslski [Katzir][10] told the U.S. team that he “hopes that the plant will be built in a year or two” because of its value for training purposes. During the inspection the U.S. team saw the space that had been slated for the pilot plant, about 50 by 50 feet with a 20-foot ceiling.

Whether talk about the plans for a pilot plant was a deliberate diversion from ongoing secret reprocessing activities at Dimona remains to be learned.

The report concluded with an absorbing discussion of recommendations on procedures for future visits, including what methods could work best to prevent subterfuge on the Israeli side. For example, a two-day visit, separated by one week, would be best for a three-person team because during the intervening time they could discuss observations and make plans for the return visit. If only one day was available, then two teams of two or three each would be preferable for covering the site “effectively.” While the Israelis would find that approach “intrusive and offensive” it would be difficult to conceal from the staff that this was an “inspection” and not a “visit.” In any event, “even such an intrusive technique would not prove that the facility was being used only for peaceful purposes.”

After the visit to the reactor had been completed, the U.S. team met briefly with science attaché Robert Webber in the corner of a room and whispered their findings to him so he could report them to Washington.