29 Jun 2009
Sample Essay: The 1978 Camp David Negotiations Between Israel & Egypt.
Middle East has remained a place of inter country hostile relations from many centuries. Time and again Muslim radicals engaged in conflict leading into bloody battles causing severe social and economic loss. These problems aggravated a lot after creation of Israel after Second World War, a destined place of living for the Jews. The later period was marked with series of clashes between the Israel and the rest of the Arab world. The 1978 Camp David Negotiations between Israel and Egypt was a step towards bringing back the long lost peace in the Middle East.
Background
When Jimmy Carter became the president of United States of America (20th January, 1977), the Middle East peace process that was almost stopped during the election campaign, started with a renewed vigor. The new policy was a total change from the Kissinger era and was more like the 1973 Geneva Conference with a Palestinian delegation. When Jimmy Carter became the president of United states of America (20th January, 1977), the Middle East peace process that was almost stopped during the election campaign, started with a renewed vigor. The new policy was a total change from the Kissinger era and was more like the 1973 Geneva Conference with a Palestinian delegation.
Carter met with Anwar Al Sadat of Egypt, King Hussein of Jordan, Hafez al-Assad of Syria, and Yitzhak Rabin of Israel. The duo of Carter and Vance came up with a basic plan that called for withdrawal of Israeli military on all fronts, including the West Bank. The West Bank Barrier of Israel is a physical barrier that is constructed by Israel. It consists of a network of fences with vehicle barrier trenches surrounded by a 60 meters wide exclusion area and high concree walls. In the mean time Israel witnessed one of the major political changes in its history with the replacement of the long-ruling Israeli Labour Party by Menachem Begin’s Likud Party in May of 1977. Though always in favor of the reconvention of the conference and even accepted the Palestinian presence, Menachem Begin was actually drawing a framework for bilateral talks with Egypt. Even earlier, Begin had not been opposed to returning the Sinai, but a major future obstacle was his firm refusal to consider relinquishing control over the West Bank.
According to Anwar Al Sadat the Geneva peace process was more of show than substance. The process was not proceeding properly especially due to disagreements with Syria. He had doubts regarding America’s ability to pressurize Israel. His worries increased after the meeting of Egypt and Israel at the official level. This was unknown to the Americans. In November 1977, Sadat’s visit to Israel inplied the recognition of Israel. He gave his opinion about peace and the positon of the Palestinian refugee problem. The strategy contemplated was not in favor of America’s and Soviet Union’s motives that was originally to bring back the Geneva Conference.
Sadat’s initiative towards bilateral talks regarding the peace process was based on the following outlook:
United States’ aid can be obtained in order to improve the troubled economy of Egypt.
He believed that Egypt needed to focus on its own interests rathe rthan the collective interests of the Arab nations.
He hoped that if he could form a similar negotiation with Israel and her Arab nations which would in turn help in solving the Palestinian problem.
The essential component of his speech involved the implementation of Resolution 242 and 338. Resolution 242 incorporates “the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.
These are to be achieved via the following principles:
Withdrawal of the armed forces of Israel from the areas affected by the recent conflict.
“Termination of all claims or states of belligerency”
The United Nation’s Security Council Resolution 338 called for a cease-fire in the Yom Kippur War in accordance with a joint proposal forwarded by the United States and the Soviet Union. It was approved on October 22nd, 1973. The components of the agreement calls upon all the parties involved in the war to cease firing and put an end to the military activities no later than 12 hours after the time of adoption of this decision and decides that immediately and simultaneously with the cease fire Middle East peace negotiations shall begin with the concerned parties. According to article 25 of UN charter the members should “agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council”. The decision made in the resolution was significant for the Arab Israeli conflict. Sadat’s visit to the Cairo Conference in December 1977 was the initial footing towards negotiations and resulted in the Camp David Accords.
Though Prime Minister Begin agreed with Sadat regarding the bilateral talks requirement being in favor of the nation’s interests, he manifested a willingness to involve the Egyptian leader.
One of the reasons for the above is that it would facilitate an opportunity for Israel to interact with Egypt instead of the entire Arab nation, which may make use of the size and make demands that are unacceptable and undesirable.
Direct negotiations between the leaders would alienate Egypt from other Arab nations, which was an Israeli goal.
(Meital, Yoram)
Discussions
The leaders of the two nations met at the David Camp with their individual purpose in mind. The discussion went on for 13 days from Sept 5-17 1978. Carter’s strong dedication towards achievement of peace and diplomacy played a great role in the success of discussion. In the past whenever leaders of these two nations aimed at any such negotiation, they had to draw back due to personal appeals from Jimmy Carter. The mutual antipathy amongst Begin and Sadat gave an opportunity to Carter to use his diplomacy in the negotiation that occurred with Carter as the medium. He held one-to-one meetings with either Begin or Sadat in a particular cabin and relayed the message to the third party.
Difficulties arose on the tenth day of the discussion when Israeli’s withdrawal of their settlement from Sinai and the condition of the West Bank came into the picture and created a deadlock of the situation. The situation was becoming harder as the leaders were not on speaking terms. These gave a chance to Carter to use his diplomacy to save the situation by advocating the removal of settlements from the Sinai Peninsula to Sadat and acknowledge the West Bank issue to Begin. Carter chose to continue negotiation for three more days instead of stopping all talks and reporting the failure by putting the blame on Begin.
The 1978 Camp David argreements had two components. While the first one was a Framework for Peace in the Middle East the second was A Framework for the Conclusion of a Peace Treaty between Egypt and Israel. This second part led to the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty which was. These agreements were accompanied by the letters of understanding letters between Egypt and US and Israel and US.
(Knesset.gov.il)
The first agreement was composed of three parts. The first part concerned a framework for negotiations to establish an autonomous self government in West Bank and the Gaza strip and implementation of SC 242 completely and the agreements concerning Sinai. The third part had different explanations from various nations - Israel, Egypt and the US. The second part concerned Egyptian-Israeli relations, the real content being in the second agreement while the third part called “Associated Principles” deals with principles that applies to relations between Israel and Arab neighbours.
The second part of the agreement forms a foundation for the peace treaty after six months specially deciding the future of Sinai peninsula. Israel agreed to retreat its armed forces from Sinai and also evacuate its 4500 civilian inhabitants and return the land to Egypt in exchange of normal diplomatic relations with Egypt. Israel also guarantees freedom to pass through the Suez Canal and waterways like Straits of Tiran. According to the deal some retrictions could be applied to the forces that Egypt could pposition on the peninsula within a certain distance from Israel which granted free passage between Egypt and Jordan and agreed to put a limit on the forces within a smaller distance from the border of Egypt. The withdrawal also caused Israel to lose the oil fields of Abu-Rudeis in Western Sinai that consisted of Israel’s only long term productive wells till that time.
Among the other results of the negotiation is the commitment of US to subsidies worth several billion dollars to both Israeli and Egyptian governments. These subsidies continue even today and are a mixture of packages of grants and aids that are committed towards the purchase of US arms. From the year of peace agreement, 1979 to 1997 there was an annual receipt of $1.3 billion that contributed towards modernization of Egyptian armed forces, which was turned into the largest in the Middle East. The supplies came from Soviet Union till 1979 but later America supplied the weaponry required -M1A1 Abrams Tank, AH-64 Apache gunship and F-16 fighter jet. In comparison Israel received a lesser amount - $3 billon annual payment in terms of grants and military aid packages from 1985 onwards.
(Eran, Oded)
Consequences of the agreements
The relations between the two negotiating nations became normal effectively from January 1980. After the boycott laws were invalidated in the same month, there was some development of trade, although it was lesser than what Israel had hoped for. Regular airline flights were inaugurated in March 1980 and Egypt also began to supply crude oil to Israel.
The years after the Camp David Accords did not leave back any doubts about their widespread changes on the politics of Middle East. More specifically the understanding about Egypt within Arab world got transformed. Due to the most powerful of Arab militaries and a history of leadership in Arab under Nasser Egypt had more power over advancement of Arab interests than the other Arab states. Sadat could not demand greater concessions for Israeli’s recognition of the rights of the Palestinians towards determination. This provoked hatred from the Arab world that led finally to the assassination of Sadat in 1981. Even Egypt was suspended from the Arab League from 1979 till 1989.
The disntegration of the united Arab nation in opposition to Israel prompted by the Camp David Accords. The realignment of Egypt gave rise to a vaccum of power that could be filled by Saddam Hussein of Iraq. Due to the vagueness of the language related to the implementation of Resolution 242, the primary issue of concern became the problem of the Palestinians in the Arab-Israeli conflict as the immediate impact of the Camp David Accord and this persists even today. Many Arab countries accused Egypt for not pressurising Israel to deal with the Palestine problems as desirable.
The greatest consequence of all may concern the of the participants of the Arab-Israeli disagreement. The success of the negotiation involving Begin, Sadat, and Carter at Camp David demonstrated to other Arab states that negotiations with Israel were not impossible. It also showed that progress comes from only sustained efforts at the levels of communication and cooperation. Inspite of the disappointing conclusion of the Oslo Accords of 1993 between the PLO and Israel. The Oslo Accords called for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza strip and West Bank and assured the right to self government of the Palentinians within those areas through creation of a Palestinian authority.
Even Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace of 1994 has not completely normalized the links with Israel. Both these significant developments had little chance of taking place without the backdrop formed by Camp David.
(Gelvin)
A critical analysis of the agreements
The most evident benefit of the negotiation between Egypt and Israel, for Israel was the lasting cease fire along the mutual border of Egypt and Israel. This facilitated the Israeli Defense Forces to lower their alert levels on the south west border of Israel.
Both the parties did adhere to the clauses of the agreements but since 1978 a feeling that the peace process was a “cold peace” began to develop among the Israelis. The disappointment was related mainly to the letter of the agreement and not the spirit.
Some hold the opinion that the people of Egypt were not given any chance of expressing their support or rejection for the terms of the agreement with afree vote or representative majority and hence it was essentially a negotiation between Sadat and Israel and not Egypt and Israel.
While the treaty was approved by a parliament majority in Israel having a multi-party electoral system, Egypt on the other hand had a Semi-presidential system consisting of single candidate representative structure.
The above claim can be supported by the claim that inspite of the Israeli tourists flocking to Egypt, in comparison not many of the Egyptians have been observed to travel to Israel.This can be partly due to the fact that the average income of Egypt is lower than that of Israel and also the population of Egypt is 71 million while Israeli has a population strngth of 6 million only. The number cannot really be compared just by figures.
Though Israel accepted the territorial demands of Egypt regarding the withdrawal from Sinai Peninsula, in the Egyptian society whoever visited Israel or even defended the agreement publicly. This was true for a significant number. These people often received death threats and bore great risks.
Anti Semitic themes and cartoons continue to appear in the Egyptian media.
Egypt is not doing much to stop the smuggling of arms from Sinai to the Gaza strip. At the Gaza strip the Palestinian extremist groups use these for terror attacks on Israel.
Egypt has also acted as the medium for many cease fire activities between the Israel and the Palestinians.
Popular protests in Egypt against peace with Israel have taken place. These have come from all levels of the society including intellectuals, students and movements towards democratization. These protests intensified mainly due to the actions of the Israelis during the conflict between Palestine and Lebanon. Though the Israelis view this as self-defense act, Egyptians criticize this as harsh repression of the Arabs.
During a poll of 1000 Egyptians in 2006, the Egyptian government report reflects that 92% of Egyptians look upon Israel as an enemy nation though the Israelis do support the Camp David Accord till date - 2001 poll states 85 % support from Israel (Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies based in Israel).
(Sela, Avraham)
Conclusion
The Camp David accords, signed by Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, were the first peace deal between Israel and an Arab state. However, some people of Israel still feel that the price paid for the peace agreement was a little too heavy on Israel. Not only did the nation give up the Sinai Peninsula they also had to evacuate the Israeli inhabitants many of whom had to be forced since they resisted the process.
In later years the Camp David Accord had very little bearance on the Middle East peace process. The Iraq-Iran war, the hostile Afghan political and social environment (that even worsened with the emergence of the Talibans), the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan are just some of the examples of the internal and external hostilities of the Middle East. Again the countries like Iran Iraq and Palestine never accepted Israel being a non-Muslim nation. Even the Saudis (Saudi Arabia) who were a close ally of US were found at times vocal against the Israelis. The long lasting (still going) bloody conflict between Israel and Palestine remains a burning question to the Middle East peace process even today. As a whole it can be said that the Camp David Accord is not a spontaneous choice of the people rather a politically moved treaty that came in a nutshell of peace. “Middle East”, one of the economically prosperous zones of the world owing to its vast oil resources has failed to reflect its economic prosperity through their human development (almost all the human development indicators are quite low for all the Middle East countries). This is mainly due to its engagement in military warfare as well as radical thoughts coming out of the country chiefs. A spontaneous and integrated effort on behalf of all Middle East nations towards bringing back peace in the Middle East is still a royal mirage.
References:
- Eran, Oded. “Arab-Israel Peacemaking.” The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East.
- Meital, Yoram., Egypt’s Struggle for Peace: Continuity and Change, 1967-1977
- Sela, Avraham. “Arab-Israeli Conflict.” The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East.
- Knesset.gov.il, “Peace Treaty Between
the State of Israel and the Arab Republic of Egypt”, http://www.knesset.gov.il/process/docs/egypt_eng.htm
5. The Israel-Palestine Conflict, James L. Gelvin
- Palestinefacts.org, http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_madrid_desc.php
- United Nation Charter, www.un.org