Professional Documents
Culture Documents
(Israeli History, Politics, and Society) Zaki Shalom - Ben-Gurion's Political Struggles, 1963-1967 - A Lion in Winter - Routledge (2006) PDF
(Israeli History, Politics, and Society) Zaki Shalom - Ben-Gurion's Political Struggles, 1963-1967 - A Lion in Winter - Routledge (2006) PDF
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
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
Acknowledgments xi
Introduction 1
Summary 119
Notes 121
Bibliography 129
Index 135
Acknowledgments
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 pre-
ferred 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 undis-
guised 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 secu-
rity 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 respec-
tive 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 con-
certed 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 “infor-
mal gains” were far more significant. First, they led to a marked strength-
ening 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 threat-
ened 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 polit-
ical 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 threat-
ened 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 con-
tinuation 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 pro-
claimed] 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 com-
pletion, 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 indi-
vidual 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 suffi-
ciently 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 sug-
gested 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 lead-
ership 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 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 inter-
ests 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 composi-
tion, platform, and plans . . . reflected the fact that it was a government
of continuity, and Eshkol termed it such.9
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 confer-
ence’s standing committee put the resolutions to a vote. Ben-Gurion dis-
agreed 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 comman-
der, 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, initia-
tive, 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 genera-
tion” 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:
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 hos-
tility 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 govern-
ment’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 celebra-
tion 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
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
1 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.
2 The removal of an effective buffer between Egypt and Israel will
increase the Egyptian army’s ability to move against Israel.
3 Western strategic reserves in the region will be weakened and dispersed
to other areas.
4 Egypt’s political status will be strengthened.
5 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 high-
ranking 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 high-
ranking 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] prison-
ers 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 imme-
diately 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 oppor-
tunity 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 far-
reaching 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 autho-
rized 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. Ben-
Gurion 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:
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 min-
ister? 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 mater-
ial. 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 investi-
gated 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
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 uncon-
vincing. I let him know that I respected his integrity and decency but
I firmly believed he had made a grievous error.18
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
In the same letter, Eshkol recalled that on December 28, 1960 he had
written to Ben-Gurion that
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 Olshen-
Dori 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 jus-
tice 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 con-
tained 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
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 oppo-
nents 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 jeop-
ardize Eshkol’s status:
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 gov-
ernment 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 con-
ventional 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 secu-
rity 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:
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:
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 admin-
istration 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 main-
tain 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 presi-
dent’s demands for semiannual visits. However, at the same time he wanted
to avoid escalating tension with the administration that might have unpre-
dictable and unfavorable consequences for Israel. Thus, he chose a vague,
non-committal middle path. He simply expressed confidence that an under-
standing could be reached. As for Washington’s request that its representa-
tives 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 repre-
sentative 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 con-
ditions 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 will-
ingness 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 consider-
able 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:
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:
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 men-
tioned that Eshkol’s last letter to the president on this matter had been “eva-
sive” 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 com-
mitted 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 suspi-
cions 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 polit-
ical 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 immedi-
ately after the elections he (Eshkol) would be required to abide by his
commitment:
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 atten-
tion 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 inter-
national 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 secu-
rity 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 disappoint-
ment 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 commit-
ment to secrecy caused further delays that served Israel’s purposes. Eshkol
also brought up other topics for discussion that were bound to cause fur-
ther 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, chair-
man 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 men-
tioned 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 offi-
cial. The administration had received information that Israel was consider-
ing opening the reactor to Israeli and foreign scientists in order to
encourage civilian-industrial research. The ambassador expressed satisfac-
tion 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 domes-
tic 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 con-
straints 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.
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 shame-
ful 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 neces-
sary 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 dis-
missal. 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 polit-
ical 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 pre-
fer 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
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 every-
thing [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 interna-
tional 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
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
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
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,
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 inter-
national 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 per-
sonal 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
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
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 princi-
ples . . . 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 erro-
neous 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
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 cate-
gorically reject all the other interpretations. There is no moral breach
whatsoever between us and Ben-Gurion.19
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 cer-
tainly 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 Ben-
Gurion 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 polit-
ical 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 aspira-
tions. 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
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 inter-
est 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:
1 Refrain from taking any action. This was ruled out because of the
heavy pressure on the government to respond.
2 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.
3 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 con-
tribute 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 demon-
strations 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 mili-
tary 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 repre-
sentatives rejected this view. They repeated in Western capitals that the hos-
tilities 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 weak-
ened 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 esti-
mated that without a swift and determined reaction to Syrian hostility, pres-
sure 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 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:
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 elim-
inate 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 pun-
ish 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 Israel-
initiated 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 mili-
tary 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 real-
ity 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 respon-
sibility 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 dimin-
ish 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 pre-
sent 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 offi-
cers 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 mil-
itary activity. Atherton made it clear that the United States was concerned
about the Israeli farmers working near the border. The White House was dis-
turbed 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 adminis-
tration, 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
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 ten-
sion 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 bat-
tle. 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 polit-
ical 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 responsi-
bilities 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 pro-
fessed 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 decid-
ing 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
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 underestima-
tion 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
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 ques-
tions. 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 pol-
icy 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 Ben-
Gurion’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 unilat-
eral 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 con-
tinued 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 inter-
rupted. 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,
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 gen-
erally 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 com-
mentary 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 agree-
ment. 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:
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 [avail-
able] . . . 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:
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,
From the minute the Syrians opened fire with their artillery, [our]
planes were ordered in because the Syrians had the upper-hand topo-
graphically. 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:
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
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
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 real-
ity 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 oper-
ational]. 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
[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
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 Ben-
Gurion and many other Israelis who were not routinely updated with intel-
ligence 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:
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
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 pres-
ence 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 jubila-
tion of June 1967 was greater than on the day the country gained indepen-
dence 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 state-
hood was declared, I saw people dancing in the streets. But I didn’t par-
take 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
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.
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
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
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
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 pres-
ence. [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 reme-
dying 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
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 [stat-
ing] 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
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 [so called] “houses” in the Jewish Quarter must be razed, the inhab-
itants 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
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 evict-
ing 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:
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 govern-
ment 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 “stock-
ade 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 injus-
tices that our woeful history has brought upon us during [the centuries
of] our exile.39
The grave error made over the last seven months since the liberation of
Jerusalem – is that parts of the Hebrew University were not immedi-
ately transferred to Mount Scopus, especially the humanities depart-
ments 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 uni-
versity’s prestige in Israel and the world over. Thousands of students
and hundreds of professors must be relocated to the Mt. Scopus cam-
pus 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 retun-
ing 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 mili-
tancy 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 unwill-
ingly, decide to storm Syria. In retrospect, when the aftershocks of the Six-
Day 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
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 Inter-
disciplinary 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; Arab–Israeli confrontation 86, 103;
and Mapam coalition 16, 60 low-intensity conflict 4, 67;
Adenauer, Chancellor 17, 20 reduction in hostilities against Israel
“Affair Prisoners” see Lavon Affair after Sinai Campaign 67; total
Ahronot, Yediot 124 n.43, 124 n.5 rejection of any “Jewish entity” in
Algeria 56; anti-French uprising in 7 Middle East 1
Al Hamishmar 87 Arab–Israeli reconciliation 69
Alignment (Ma’arach), headed by Aranne, Zalman 13, 16
Eshkol 64 Argov, Shlomo 76
Allon, Yigal 9, 40 Atherton, Roy 78
Almogi, Yosef 102, 107, 114 Avigur, Shaul 57, 59, 124 n.9
Alterman, Nathan 97 Ayalon, David 68
Amar, Field Marshal, Egypt’s defense Azar, Moshe 23
minister 67, 93
America/n: negotiations between Israel Ba’ath regime in Syria 65, 66, 83, 86
and Egypt mediated by 24; Bamachane 75
political-security thinking 48; Barbour, Walworth, US Ambassador to
position on tension with Syria 78; Israel 50, 51, 76, 78; visit to Israel’s
Sixth Fleet stationed in Mediterranean northern border 77
95; weaknesses, three main 48; Barkat, Reuven 16; secretary of
see also United States; Washington Mapai 18
American–Israeli relations 49; Bar-Lev, Chaim 19
endangering support for 41; Battle, Lucius 77
friendship for 53; representatives Beer-Sheva 52
visiting Dimona reactor 39, 50; Begin, Menachem 5, 21, 112, 114
security guarantees 49, 51; talks on Beit Shan Valley 66
inspection issue 50 Ben Asher, A. 126 n.21
Amit, Meir, Head of Mossad 25, 53, Ben-Barka, Mehdi 53
54, 122 n.5, 124 n.5; proposed trip Ben-Barka Affair 53–56; as “security
to Egypt 67, 68 blunder” 53
Anderson, Robert 94 Ben-David, Haim 27
Anglo-Egyptian Agreement 23 Ben-Gurion, David 5; Adenauer
April 7 aerial incident see Syria meeting, aborted 17–22; alienation
Arab/s: antagonism 43; Chiefs of Staff from Mapai’s leadership 22;
Conference in Cairo 65; infiltration 3; Arab–Israeli conflict, views on nature
plan for diverting sources of Jordan of 3; authoritarian and unbending
River into Arab areas 65, 85; resolve personality 62; charges of “security
to challenge postwar reality 4; incompetence” regarding nuclear
Summit meeting in Cairo 65 option 52; clear-cut statements on
136 Index
Ben-Gurion, David (Continued) Chuvakhin, Soviet Ambassador to
defense issues 6; demand for judicial Israel 110
inquiry 32; eventual split with party CIA 95
10; exile 5; fluctuating positions Civil–military relations in democracy,
96–105; France, Israel’s reliance on proper 88
56; involvement in war 106; on Committee of Seven see Lavon Affair
Jerusalem’s liberation in Six-Day War Conference of the Heads of African
116–118; leadership skills 119; States in Kinshasa 95
major political decisions 1; new Cuba 39; Soviet activity inside 76
government 6; nuclear option of
Israel, views on I 49; political power Dan River, source of 65
9, 16; Prime Minister 39; protégés Dar, Avraham 24, 25, 121 n.2,
of 16; and Rafi’s criticism 79–86; 122 nn.4–6
resignation 9, 12–17, 31, 121 n.1; Dassa, Robert 24
return to leadership 26; senior IDF Davar 37, 38
promotions 19; silence on Samu Dayan, Moshe, General and Defense
Operation 80; Tel-Aviv 107; visit to Minister 2, 3, 9, 16, 26, 36, 56, 64,
Israeli Air Force’s (IAF) “pit” at 80, 83, 85, 98, 103, 104, 106, 107,
GHQ 106; war, view of 92; war’s 109, 114, 125 n.33, 127 n.17;
gains, strengthening of 110–118; autobiography, Story of My Life
written code 15 98; security establishment’s
Ben-Gurion and Eshkol: accusation of shortcomings 84; strategic
government of yielding ground to concept 4; “working plan” 3
Americans 48; allegation of Defense policy, criticism of 79
“security incompetence” 37, 38, 52; De Gaulle, Charles, President 21, 55,
Ben-Barka Affair, criticism of role 113; France’s relations with Arab
in 54; campaign against 22, 23, 36, world 56; supporters 113
49, 79, 80, 114; campaign against Demilitarization of Sinai 7
government 79; charge of grave Demilitarized zones 66
“security blunder” 37; ingratitude of Desert kibbutz of Sede-Boker 5
15; initial frictions 12; motives for Dimona Affair 36, 45
attacks on 55; support as Dimona nuclear reactor 38, 43
heir-designate 15, 16; tension Dimona Project 10, 40, 46; American
between 17, 61, 64 officials, frequent inspections by 49;
Ben-Yosef, Asher 57 American request to assure President
Bergmann, Ernest David 52 Nasser about activity at 43;
Bethlehem 115, 116 Ben-Gurion’s “willingness” to agree
Binnet, Max 23 to “periodic visits” to 41; for
Bitan, Moshe 124 n.42 industrial and economic needs 39;
Blockade of straits see Straits of Tiran inspections at 40, 48; Kennedy’s
Border tensions 4, 74; Egypt 67; message to Eshkol 41; lack of broad
Jordan 8, 71; Syria 70, 79–81, 87 support for 41; reaffirming nature
Bourghiba, Habib, president of and aims of 42
Tunisia 69 Dori, Ya’acov 36, 37
Brazil 92; regiment in Gaza strip 93
British Mandate, struggle against 1 Eban, Abba, Foreign Minister
British withdrawal from Egypt 23 85, 114; mission to Western
Bull, Odd, General 110 capitals 100
Egypt 96, 120; air strike 105; army
Canada 92; regiment in Sinai 93 deployed in Sinai 96; avoiding
Carmel, Amos 122 n.23 military confrontation with Israel 94;
Carmel, Hezi 124 n.5 blockade of Straits of Tiran 84, 95;
Carmon, David, Colonel 68 Czech arms deal 6; desire for
Castro, Fidel 39 peaceful status quo with Israel 68;
Index 137
espionage operation by Israel 23; maneuvering position vis-à-vis 52;
intelligence fiasco in 28; Israeli see also Ben-Barka Affair; Ben-Gurion
military clash 83; Israeli relations and Eshkol; Lavon Affair
68, 91; Jewish community in 23; Espionage operation in Egypt 23
military inferiority vis-à-vis Israel Ethiopia 69
67; missile systems, development of Etzel 1
45; motive for demanding removal Etzion Bloc 116
of UN forces 93; negotiations, European Jewry, attempts to rescue 1
opportunity for direct, high-level Evron 50
68; non-conventional capability
103; nuclear activity 43; nuclear “Fatah Organization,” Palestinian 65
capability 46; objective situation 67; Fawzi, chief of staff, General 93
peace agreement 51; political France: deterioration of Israeli relations
status 23; POWs (Prisoners of War) 54; involvement in Sinai Campaign
24; reduction in hostilities by 8; 56; Israel policy 113; and Israel
Sharm al-Sheikh, control of 94; relations 8, 54, 55, 114; long-range
show of military might 92; Sinai, missiles that Israel was about to
forces in 81, 92; Soviet bloc, arms receive from 45; nuclear program
deal between 6; spy ring in 24, 25; 50; relations with Arab world 56;
Syria, commitment to 69; Syria transfer of reactor’s operation to
Ba’ath regime, full recognition of 66; Israel 43; willingness to supply Israel
unconventional weapons 83; with arms 6
see also Nasser, President
Eilat, Israel’s Red Sea port of 94; to Galilee, Israel 9
Sharm-el-Sheikh, land-bridge Galilee, Sea of 65, 66
linking 7 Galili, Israel 40
Eisenstadt, Shmuel 68 Gavish, Yeshayahu, General 92
Elazar, David, Major General 77 Gaza Strip 93; armed infiltration from
Elections, national, in Israel 5, 31, 54; 97; Israel partial control over 7;
Rafi in 11, 64 regugees in 111, 114; Swedish,
Eretz Israel 107 Brazilian and Indian regiments
Eshkol, Levi 2, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, deployed in 93
16, 18, 28, 111, 114; alleged Gazit, Mordechai 46, 50, 68; report 47
responsibility for security fiasco 36; Gazit, Shlomo, Colonel 68
army, use for political ends 59; General Armistice Agreements 110
attempt to destabilize government of German–Israeli relations 41
63; Dimona Project, policy on 119; German Scientists Affair in Egypt 39,
government’s Syrian policy 108; 41, 54
internal party affairs, handling of Germany’s long-term commitments to
21; Jerusalem’s status, position on Israel 17
securing 59; Johnson, meeting with Gibli, Benyamin, head of military
46; Lavon Affair, handling of 13; intelligence 26, 27
leadership with legitimacy 61; Ginai, Ariel 68
nuclear option, policy for developing Golan, Matti 63, 124 n.21
38; nuclear program, “disastrous Golan Heights 108, 118; seizing 109
submission” on 50; prime Golda see Meir, Golda
minister–defense minister 85; Rafi Golomb, David 55, 124 n.47
opponents 49; retaliatory policy 89; Gotthalf, Yehuda 37, 38, 123 nn.3–5
speech at convention 19; state’s Gross, Shlomo 68
secret services 53; Syrian regime, Guerrilla warfare, popular 65
government aiming to topple 94;
understanding with Americans 48; Ha’aretz 48
United States, attempt to improve Hacohen, David 36
relationship 56; United States, Hagana 59
138 Index
Halevi, Ephraim 68 of 72; Arab population, demographic
Hammarskjöld, Dag 93 consequences in annexing 111; Arab
Harari, Yizhar 68 world, implementing provocative
Harel, Issar, first director of Mossad policy against 95; Atomic Energy
53, 68 Commission 52; close ties with
Harel, Yossi 27, 53 peripheral states 69; declaration of
Har-Even, Major General 68 statehood 1; demilitarized zones,
Harkav, Yehoshaphat, General 68 rights in 86; deterrence capability 6,
Harman, Avraham, Israeli 7, 75; France and Britain, plans for
Ambassador to the United States, joint military operation against Egypt
Avraham 46, 72 7; and France, relations with 7, 55;
Harriman, Averill, W. 46, 47 Gaza Strip, partial control over 7;
Hazan, Ya’akov 9, 88, 89, German policy 17; holy sites and
126 nn.19, 20 Mount Scopus, free access to 60;
Hebrew University in Jerusalem 32, intelligence operation in Egypt,
116; Board of Governors 118 blunder during 23; Jerusalem, status
Hebron 66, 115; Patriarch’s Tomb in 3, 60; Jordan, large-scale
in 116 retaliation in 66; military operations
Hemed, Sifrei 124 n.5 on Jordanian and Syrian fronts 108;
Herut Party 5, 20 military victory 110; Morocco, need
Herzog, Chaim, General 115 to pacify 56; northern border 76;
Hevrat Ha’ovdim 31 nuclear capability 44, 47; nuclear
Histadrut (Labor Federation) 5 development 38, 40, 42, 54, 105;
Hod, Mordechai, Maj. Gen. 80, 81, nuclear option 1, 7, 8, 38, 47;
106, 112, 125 n.3 nuclear program, American position
Hod, Motti, Colonel 19, 20 on 45; Old City, sovereignty in 111;
Holocaust 1 political stability 24; pro-Western
Hulda Letter 32 Arab states, limited ability to
Humphrey, Hubert 102 retaliate against 70, 74; reprisal 70;
Hussein, King of Jordan 70; demand retaliation policy 72; security
for immediate military aid from the guarantees mainly from American
United States 72; reassurance of administration 42, 69; security
America’s support 72; regime of 80; problem 51, 79; shipping through
reign in aftermath of Samu raid 71; straits 96; status quo in Middle
see also Jordan East 66, 69; terrorist attacks
originating in Jordan 70; West
IDF see Israeli Defense Forces Bank 71, 73
Independence Day: IDF parade through Israeli Air Force (IAF) 65, 83; air
Jerusalem’s streets 92; parade in strike 9, 102; air superiority against
Haifa 60 Syria 75
India 92, 93; arms race with Pakistan Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) 3;
49; regiment in Gaza strip 93 appointments 20; attack on
Indo-Pakistan war 48; Soviet Egyptians 97; modus operandi
arbitration at Tashkent 69; Soviet toward Syria 81; operations against
initiatives to ease tension Pakistan Syria 88; preparedness for war 37,
between and 68 103; raids against Jordan 66; Syrian
International Court in The Hague, policy 86
Nasser’s proposal to refer straits Israeli–Egyptian war 6
issue to 96 Israeli–Jordanian Armistice Agreement
International inspection at Dimona 50 60; violations of 92
Iran 69, 76 Israeli–Syria relations: border incident
Ish-Shalom, Mordechai 112 involving Israeli jets 75; ceasefire
Israel: ambassador to Washington 74; 109; defense establishment,
American-made Patton tanks, use escalation policy toward 78; dispute
Index 139
over the diversion of water sources Kollek, Teddy, Director-General of the
87; modus operandi 81; nature and Prime Minister’s Office 17, 18, 20,
aims of action against Syria 75; 46, 60, 111, 112, 115, 116
nature of threat to Israel 65–69; Komet, Robert, W. 46, 47, 50, 72
operations against 88; policy
towards 86; refraining from Laskov, Haim, chief of staff 27, 36
attacking 66; retaliation policy Lavon, Pinchas 2, 5, 26; Ben-Gurion’s
toward 76 denials of involvement in dismissal
30; dismissal 26, 30; and Gibli,
Jabotinsky, Ari 20, 21 meeting between 33; loyalists 27;
Jabotinsky, Ze’ev 21; reburial of resignation 30; supporters in
bones 20 Mapai 31
Jerusalem 1, 3, 60, 107; “Arab claim” Lavon Affair 9–11, 23, 39, 63, 119;
to 113; handling of 111; Ben-Gurion resignation 29;
international status 69; Jewish Ben-Gurion’s demand for judicial
Quarter of 115; liberation in inquiry 10, 28–29, 32–34; case
Six-Day War 116, 117; military before Knesset Foreign Affairs and
parade on Independence Day 60; Security Committee 27; Committee
status of 59–60; Western Wall 111, of Seven 28, 29, 34, 60; Eshkol’s
113, 115, 116; see also Old City objection to Ben-Gurion’s demands
Jerusalem Post 85 33–35; espionage operation, botched
Jewish dissident paramilitary 26; indifference of Israeli authorities
organizations 1 to prisoners 24; political implications
Jewish exiles ingathering of 1 28–35; “Prisoners of the Affair” 24;
Jewish vote 47 reinvestigation of 64; responsibility
Johnson, President 18, 72, 100; for catastrophe 26; source of friction
Dimona nuclear reactor, intentions between Ben-Gurion and Eshkol 31
regarding 20; letter to Eshkol 43; Lebanon 74, 76
meetings with Eshkol 45; special Lechi 1
envoys 47 Levi, Victor 24
Johnson Administration 43, 44 “Little Alignment,” merging of Mapai
Jordan 74, 76, 120; ally of the West and Achdut Ha’avoda 60
71; border 8; deployment of Patton Low-intensity war 4, 67
tanks 74; Israeli military operations
on 108; Israeli relations 79; sector Mabat Hadash 36, 49, 85
of Jerusalem 116; sources diversion Maizel, Matityahu 125 nn.23–25
of 65; see also Hussein, King of Makhus, Ibrahim, Prime Minister 66
Jordan; Samu Operation/Raid Makleff, Mordechai 36
Joseph, Dov 18 Mapai 2, 5; Ben-Gurion’s resignation
14; Central Committee 14, 30;
Kennedy, President 9, 123 n.14; conventions 18, 20, 60–64; demand
assassination 43, 46; and for greater ideological-political
Ben-Gurion, balance of power pluralism in 31; hegemony 24; High
between 39; pressure on Israel Court 61; inner ring of decision
10, 40 makers 22; internal struggle 9;
Kennedy Administration 39; Israel’s leadership’s internal struggle 62; new
breach with 41; pressure on Israel government downfall 2; split 57
10, 40 Mapam party 9, 28; criticism 86–91;
Kibbutz Dan 65 pro-Soviet orientation 90
Kibbutz Hulda 32 Marzuk, Shmuel 23
Kibia Operation, 1953 80 Mass immigration 1
Kinneret Operation 109 Meir, Golda 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 38,
Knesset 5; Foreign Affairs and Security 53, 59, 61, 111, 121 n.3, 122 nn.17,
Committee 36 25, 124 nn.8, 44; Foreign Minister
140 Index
Meir, Golda (Continued) No war – no peace strategy 4
talks in Washington 44; power in Nuclear development in Israel 1, 7, 8,
government 14; rejection of 38, 40, 42, 47, 54, 105
Ben-Gurion’s policy 18 Nuclear facility in Dimona see
Meshel, Yerucham 57 Dimona nuclear reactor; Israel
Meyuchas, Meir 24 Nuclear proliferation 45; global
Middle East: Israel as power player 8; monitoring of weapons 49
status quo 74
Military initiatives, Ben-Gurion’s Old City 108, 115; Jews, resettlement
objection to 103 of 112; see also Jerusalem
“Min Hayesod” (From the Basis) 31; Olshen-Dori committee 33
pro-Lavon group 32 Operation Rotem 97
Missile project 46 Operation Shredder 70
Moral image of Israel 79 Oron, Yitzhak 68
Morocco 56, 69; need to pacify 56;
secret service 53 Pakistan: and India, arms race 49; and
Mossad 53, 55, 67; Amit, Meir, head India, Soviet Union’s mediation 48,
of 25, 53, 67, 68; Harel, Issar, first 69; and United States military
head of 53, 68; involvement in alliance 48; see also India
Ben-Barka assassination 53 Palestinian Arabs 3
Mount Scopus 116, 118 Palestinian refugee problem 69
Muhyi ad-Din, Zakariya, Egyptian Vice Palmach generation 19
President 102 Patriarch’s Tomb in Hebron 116
Peled, Natan 68
Nahari, Binyamin 124 n.46 People’s war of liberation 65
Namir, Mordechai 26 Peres, Shimon 9, 16, 18, 26, 31, 46,
Nasser, President 41, 44, 51, 65, 67, 47, 48, 57, 58, 80, 83, 85, 97, 99,
81, 94, 95, 96; blind to dire 102, 103, 110, 114; Deputy Defense
consequences of blockading straits Minister 14; secretary of Rafi 86
97; bragging 104; brazen Politicization of defense establishment
provocations and excessive 57–69
confidence 103; Egypt’s status to be Pre-Six-Day War period 85;
enhanced by bold military-political Ben-Gurion’s concern about hasty
moves 83; fears of Israel’s military militant moves 102
capability 44; International Court in Public security, guaranteeing 4
The Hague, proposal to refer straits
issue to 96; Johnson’s message to Rabin, Yitzhak, Chief of Staff 19, 20,
127 n.28; prestige 100; real motives 24, 70, 76, 77, 81, 82, 83, 92, 120,
and intentions 97; regime, move to 122 n.4, 125 n.5; breakdown during
topple 7; revising strategic posture prewar waiting period 82; dominant
toward Israel 7; self-aggrandizement role in formulating nation’s defense
in Arab world 99; water diversion policy 83; remark regarding Israel’s
proposal 65; see also Egypt Syrian policy 88; and US
Nathanson, Philip 24 ambassador to Israel, meeting
National Security Council 46 between 76; US military attaché,
National Unity Government 11, meeting with 73
108, 118 Rachel’s Tomb 116
National Water Carrier (NWC) 65 Rafi 36, 58, 80, 103; basic principles
Navon, Yitzhak 64 37; Central Committee 117; election
Navot, Menachem 68 results 11, 64; establishment of
Ninio, Marcel 24 separate faction 61; founding of 57;
Nir, Yoel 125 n.22 new, independent party 11; Peres as
Nisiyahu, Mordechai, Prime Minister’s secretary 86; policy toward Arab
Military Advisor 46, 55 world 85; reunion with Mapai 11;
Index 141
Secretariat 110; weekly journal, after 92; and Six-Day War, interim
Mabat Chadash 36, 49, 85 between 8
Reiner, Eliezer 87 Sinai Peninsula 93; “rolling crisis” in
Reiner, Ephraim 126 nn.17, 18 94; UN troops, stationing in 7
Research missile 31 Sinai War see Sinai Campaign
Resignation 10 Six-Day War 1, 11, 24, 55, 62, 69, 70,
Revisionist movement 20 78; events preceding 119; eve of 81;
Riftin, Ya’akov 68, 89, 90 first stages of crisis 92–96; IDF’s
Rikhye 92 dazzling victory 37; outbreak of 24,
Riyad, Mahmud, Egyptian Foreign 52, 119; road to 65
Minister 95 Soviet Union 83; arbitration at
Rosen, Pinchas 28, 29, 33, 34 Tashkent 68, 69; decision to sever
Rotenstreich, Nathan 32 diplomatic relations with Israel 109;
Rothschild, Edmund 113 Israel’s fear of intervention on Syria’s
Rush, Dean, Secretary of State 44 side 76, 78, 104, 109; warning 110
statehood consciousness 15
Saig, Eli 122 n.33 State of Israel 12
Samu Operation/Raid 66, 70–74, 80; Straits of Tiran 83, 85, 94, 95; blockade
American position 74–78; of 100; closure as act of belligerency
Ben-Gurion’s silence on 80; King 97; guarantee of free passage through
Hussein’s message to Israel 72; 7, 93; to Israel’s territorial waters,
repercussions in Jordan 71; United blockade of 94, 100
States criticism 71 Strategic material 96
Sapir, Joseph 108 Suawaydani, Chief of Staff 66, 70
Sapir, Pinchas 9, 14, 16 Suez Campaign 24
Saudi Arabia 76 Suez evacuation 121 n.1
Saunders, Hal 77 Surface-to-surface missiles, acquisition
Schwimmer, Al 57 of 54
Security blunder 119 Sweden 92; regiment in Gaza strip 93
Sede-Boker, desert kibbutz 5 Syria 74; acts of sabotage backed by
Service Record 81 65; Ba’ath regime 66, 82, 86; border
Sèvres Conference 7 8, 67, 80; Communist bloc, close
Sha’ar Yishuv 65 alignment 76; consent to Security
Shabtai, K. 122 n.34 Council resolution for ceasefire 108,
Shacham, David 124 n.6 109; delegation 66; and Egypt,
Shalom, Zaki 121 n.31, 122 n.22 defense 66, 94; hard-line position in
Shapira, Chaim Moshe 28, Arab world 87; incident of April 7,
111, 114 1967 80, 81, 89–91; and Jordan,
Sharett, Moshe, Foreign Minister 2, tensions 70; militant policy in
13, 16, 30, 61, 116; and Ben-Gurion, international arena 70; pleas to
relations between 5; dismissal Cairo 92; propaganda to undermine
122 n.22; dual role of prime Jordan’s Hashemite dynasty 70;
minister-foreign minister 3; relentless belligerency 76; ties with
premiership, consequences of 5; Soviet Union 65, 104
strategic thinking 6 Syria and Israel relations: decision to
Sharma al-Sheikh 93 escalate incidents on border 120;
Shavit 2, 31 halting provocations against 76;
Sheikh Hussein Bridge 66 hostile policy toward Israel 69; Israeli
Shinar, Felix, Israel’s unofficial civilian settlements, shelling of 65;
ambassador to Germany 17 Israeli defense establishment’s attitude
Shnitzer, Shmuel 68 on 78; military operations on Syrian
Shoshani, Eliezer 55 fronts 108; military superiority of
Sinai Campaign, 1956 1, 7, 8, 67, 69, Israel 75; nature of threat to Israel
95, 97, 104, 120; IDF withdrawal 65–69; rising tension 79
142 Index
Tel-Aviv Workers Council 58 Israel’s agreement to monitoring
Terrorist campaign against Israel 65 arrangements at Dimona reactor 43;
Terror organizations attacking Israel fearful of nuclear proliferation 49;
from Jordanian territory 70 Israel in danger of breach of faith
Turkey 69 with 29; Israel’s nuclear program,
Tzur, Zvi, Chief of Staff 19, 36, 85, change in attitude toward 39;
102, 107, 109 see also America/n; United States
Water disputes 66
UAR missile threat 45 Weitz, Yosef 107, 127 n.3
United Nations: Partition Plan 69; Weizman Ezer, General 19, 106, 112
pullout from Sinai 90 West Bank 108, 118; Ben-Gurion’s
United Nations Emergency Force views on 108, 111, 113; Israel’s
(UNEF) 93, 94; evacuation of Sinai plan to occupy 73; Palestinian
92, 94; troops from Sweden, Brazil, villages 74; protests following
Canada, Yugoslavia and India 92 Samu raid 71
United States 76, 95; Act of Western Powers 70, 76; need for
Battle – List of Strategic Materials coordination with 105
96; attitude toward Israel’s nuclear Wolffensohn, Avraham 36
option, dramatic shift in 45;
Embassy in Tel-Aviv 60; involvement Ya’ari, Meir 9, 87
in Vietnam 76; policy of preventing Yadin, Yigael, General 36, 106
nuclear proliferation 49; presidential Yahil, Chaim, Director-General of the
elections 38; procuring weapons Foreign Ministry 46
from 6; Security Council decision for Yariv, Aharon, General 68, 77
ceasefire between Israel and Syria Yemen 67
110; standing vis-à-vis USSR 42; Yishuv 12, 26, 59
see also America/n; Washington Yisraeli, Haim, Assistant Defense
U Thant, UN Secretary General 93, Minister 102, 107
94, 95 Yosef, Dov 645
Yoseftal, Santa 55
Vietnam 48 Yosephtal, Giora 9, 26
Vietnam War 49 Yugoslavia 92, 93; troop pullout from
Voice of Israel 108 Sharma al-Sheikh area 94
www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk