SamplesHistoryHistory Essay Sample Buy essay
← Bloody Sunday and Some Mothers SonHistory Essay on Different Events →

Custom History Essay Sample Essay

1.0 Introduction

1.1 The nature of the tension between Israel and Arabs

There was a long point of tension between the Israel and the Arab countries which surrounded it since time immemorial (Dershowitz, 2008). The president of the United States however was not pleased with the current state of affairs in the two countries. He therefore took the multilateral political approach to address the issue. He therefore sought and brought unity between the Arabian countries and Israel and the subsequent signing of the Camp David peace accord on September 12th, 1977.

This was possibly an upgrade from the Henry Kissinger bilateral approach to seek peace deal between the two countries in the region. Out of the numerous peace talks and lobbying which he undertook to end the war, his efforts bore fruits as he succeeded in overseeing the peace deal being signed between the Israel and the Egyptian country. It is important to note that the presence of the tension between Israel and the surrounding Arabian countries had caused strife in the US political campaign trail of the year 1976 (Gad, 1991).

1.2 Carter’s role on human rights and peace initiative

In then American history, President Jimmy Cater is viewed as the most peaceful president ever (Quandt, 1986). This follows his spirited and unrivaled initiatives to ensure that there was peace not only in the American country but also world wide. His reign saw the time when the America forces were most kept from the wars in the world. More over, he saw that there were various peace deals in the world and this saw that there was peace in the world during his reign.

Notably, president Jimmy carter efforts have given him the long history of the actions he undertook. The Carter contra El Salvador and Carter contra Cuba are some of the peace initiatives the president undertook to end wars in the world. Among many other peace initiatives, the most sticking and the most important peace accord whose effects remain to date was the signing of the Camp David peace accord between Israel and Egypt. This noble activity took place in the Washington on the September 17th of the year 1977 (Carter & Richardson, 1998).

2.0 The Camp David accord

2.1 Carter’s multilateral approach to peace negotiations

After winning the election, Jimmy Carter took the initiative to start his term in the topmost office in the country by trying to resolve the political scams which were being manifested in the Middle Eastern countries (Carter & Richardson, 1998). Initially, the peace deal had been organized for all the countries concerned in the war. Notably, there was the Israel which was at war with the neighboring Arab countries including Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria.

However, the king of Jordan, King Hussein refused to attend the meeting organized by Carter for the negotiation of the peace deal. He cited the possibility of provoking Syria and other Arab countries through the PLO (Palestinian Liberal Organization) which was meant to guide the operations of the countries of the Arab world in their external operations and war with the non Arab worlds. The Syrian leader, Hafez al-Assad was not interested in the search for the political peace with Israel but he opted to meet the US president Jimmy Cater in other neutral place of Geneva in Netherlands to discuss the peace deal.

Reports show that president El-Sadat of Egypt and the prime minister of Israel Begin had been having private talks between their countries to have a bilateral peace deal struck between them. This was paramount contribution to the peace diplomacies which President Carter and the US secretary of state then, Cyrus Vance, advanced to reach a peace deal in the region bearing fruit between the two countries .

It is important to note that all along, the point of contention between the two countries was the land of Sinai and the West Bank which were at the disposal of Egypt but was seriously followed to be achieved and claimed back by Israel (Kliot, 1996). This ensured a continued existence of the war between the two countries as the president of Egypt, Mr. Sadat, though was willing to let go Sinai, but was reluctant to let go West Bank i.e. Judea and Samaria area. This was an area which was considered to be the major borne of contention between the two countries.

2.2 Muhammad El-Sadat of Egypt search for peace

As the tension and the wars between Egypt and Israel intensified, there were the consequences. It is important to note that the consequences were being felt as hard on Egypt as a country. The president, Mr. Sadat was however held back from the peace deals which were being advanced by the fact that he never wanted to lose the Arabian ally countries which made up the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) (Quandt, 1986).

However, as time went by, the situation in Egypt was becoming serious day by day (Dershowitz, 2008). The economy was deteriorating at a very faster rate that president Sadat was forced to consider the alternatives. On close consideration, the president questioned the support of the Arabian countries and their network in the development in the state of affairs.

He saw no point of further and meaningful support aimed towards ending the war which was taking place and there were no possible indications that the war could end anytime soon. He therefore took the brave stand to negotiate for the peace deal with the Israel. He organized for a surprise visit to the Israel country in November 1977. He was thus the first NATO leader to recognize Israel and to negotiate for peace with the country (Collopy & Cronkite, 2000).

El- Sadat took the whole world by surprise when he announced his intension of visiting Jerusalem and consequently did the same with a three day visit to Jerusalem. Though people read sinister motives in the Egyptian President’s move to the Israel country against the wish and supports of NATO, the president was very genuine in his actions and seek peace for the benefit of his ailing economic situation in his country (Dershowitz, 2008). At the same time, the Israel country lead by the then prime minister, Begin saw the opportunity of sticking a deal with the Egyptian leader. He therefore welcomed El-Sadat to his country and opted to deal with the single state leader rather than the whole NATO (Rosenberg, 2009).

He saw the sense of striking a deal with the Egyptian leader who would then increase the chances of more peace deals with the other NATO leaders with whom he was at war with (Greffenius, 1993). This meant that they stroke a deal and the coming in of the American president Jimmy Carter was just a big coincidence and boost to the efforts the two countries had put in place to strike a peace deal between them.

With the advancement and influence from the white house, the two countries were more committed to make a peace deal. They therefore put a side their planned wars which were in place and opted for the signing of the peace accord on the day of September, 7th 1977.

2.3 The end of the cold war

Israel is a Jewish country surrounded by various Arabian countries like Syria, Egypt and Jordan. This was an unfortunate coincidence following the long history of disagreements between the Arabs and the Israelites dating back to many years (Reich, 2008). Some people actually dated back the bad blood between Israel and the Arabs to the times of Abraham who is believed to be founding father of the Israelites. The bone of contention and the cases of war between the Arabian countries and Israel has been a myriad of factors ranging from political supremacy, religion to fighting over resources.

In the 18th century, the war was not yet over at that particular period; the west bank and the legendary Sinai region were the major cause of tension, wars and distrust between Egypt and Israel. Consequently, the other Arabian countries through their association of NATO, took the initiative to back up Egypt to take control of the two places in at the boundary between Israel and the Arabian country. This caused a long time serial wars in the region (Perry, Chase, Jacob, & Jacob, 2009).

Following the poor relationships, the Arabian countries never recognized Israel as a sovereign country. They were therefore ready to do all that it took to ensure that what they wanted along the boundaries was repossessed from the country (Perry, Chase, Jacob., 2009). On the same note, Israel was not ready to let go the areas which were under the contention. Not only were the areas rich in resources for economic sustainability like for the agricultural use and centre for trade, but the other places like Sinai have long historical legends and cultural values to Israel. Both sides were therefore ready to defend their interests at all costs in ensuring that they never lost even a single resource.

2.4 Carter’s role in the fighting of the cold war

During the year 1978, there was a lot of discontents and distrust between the United States and the Soviet Union country in the region (Abraham, 1999). There was the political and economical rivalry between the two countries and the signing of the peace accord had a great impact in the nature of the cold war which had existed between the United States and the USSR (Spielrogel, 2010). The signing of the Camp David accord between the Israel and the Egyptian countries which was overseen by the president of the united state states also had a bearing effect on the move towards ending of the cold war between the United Sates and the Soviet Union.

Prior to the signing of the peace accord, it is worth noting that Israel as a country was what could be said to be a close American ally country (Thompson, 1979). That is to say that America had a lot of interest and investments in the country. The war between Israel and the Arabian countries thus was not a welcome message to the United States.

Similarly, the USSR also was what could be considered to be a close ally country to the Arabian world countries (Whelan, 2009). Notably, the Union Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) had invested heavily in the Egypt as a country and the war between the Egypt and the Israel was equally not a welcome message to them (Whelan, 2009). The whole scenario thus gave a picture where America and the USSR were on the opposing sides as far as the Israel- Arabian countries war was concerned. This was like a renewed supremacy struggles between the two major world powers. The situation in the Israel and the Arabian countries deteriorated the bilateral relations between the two countries further.

The signing of the Camp David peace deal therefore meant that Israel and Egypt, the two countries where the western power countries of USSR and America had a lot of interest and influence were no longer at any war. This ensured that internally, America benefited a lot as there was the need to end the cold wars which it was experiencing with USSR (Haqqi, 1988).

The act of peace deal between the Egypt and the Israel as countries ensured that the bilateral relationship of USSR and the American state were more improved. More peace therefore prevailed in the American country, as a major peace and humanity initiative efforts of the president carter’s administration (Zinn & Arnove, 2004). These contributed to the peace legacy which has been used to rank Jimmy Carter as the most peace oriented president in the United States.

The signing was done in the presence of the American president, Jimmy Carter in the white house. The three people involves in the peace initiative of Camp David were thus, the President Jimmy carter of America, Egyptian president Anwar El Sadat  and Israel Prime Minister Menachem Begin. Carter oversaw the whole negotiations and the signing of the deal. The Israel Prime Minister Begin and the Ethiopian president El-Sadat took the bold step to reach the accord and signed it (Quandt, 1986).

2.5 The west bank and Gaza framework

For the peace deal to be sustainable there was a framework not only between Israel and Egypt but also between Israel and its neighbors. Some of these agreed logistics included the roles played by the nations which were concerned. The Arabian countries including Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria with their warring counterpart Israel were expected to participate fully in the peace talks and to ensure the peace became a success in the Middle East (Greffenius, 1993). 

Israel and Egypt were expected to form transitional system in the West Bank and Gaza. This state of affairs was not to take long before it was done away with, that is it was not to take more than five years. It was to be replaced by the free willing inhabitant where by the military governance of the Israel government could be denied any autonomy (Carter, 2006). The negotiations were to be done under the watch of Jordan simply to participate in the preparation of the necessary logistics of this transitional government. This was an attempt to give leadership freely to the inhabitants of these affected parties and uphold the principle of self government as well as to take care of the security concerns of the parties in question (Carter & Richardson, 1998).

It was also agreed that the three states of Egypt, Israel and Jordan were to assist in ensuring that all the modalities of this self government was to be put in place. There was to be withdrawal of the military soldiers of Israel, this was to be replaced by the local police that was to be chosen from the people that were involved in this problem (Quandt, 1986). The Jordan citizens were also expected to be included in the provision of security to the local people. As much as this change of security was taking place the remaining Israel security were to be redeployed to other places requiring security such as the border points and also other sensitive parts. This was to ensure that the people enjoyed their own government and felt part of the self rule.

When this self governance was in place, the count down of the five year period begun. The first three years was to oversee the start of the negotiations to try to establish the peace in the west bank and the Gaza. There were two committees which were to be formed in an attempt to solve these problems. The first committee was to consist of Israel, Egypt, Jordan and the few elected representative of the inhabitants of the west bank and Gaza. This was to deal with negotiating the modalities of the final peace process between the west bank and Gaza and its relationship with its neighbors (Greffenius, 1993).

The second committee was to consist of the representative of Israel, the representative of Jordan and the few selected representative of the inhabitants of west bank and Gaza (Greffenius, 1993). This committee was to look at the peace deal between Israel, Lebanon and Jordan. These arrangements were to follow the framework upon which the united Security Council outlined. These negotiations were to ensure the fundamental rights and justice for all the Palestinian people. These negotiations were also to take into account the locations of the boundaries and the nature of security involved.

The measures were to be taken to ensure the security of the transitional government of Israel and its neighbors (Israel Ministry of Foreign Affair, 2008). The local police were to be constituted and it was to be very strong to ensure security at designated points in the Middle East. It was also to include some of the Israel, Egyptian and Jordanian officers.

During such self rule the representatives from Egypt, Israel and Jordan were to establish continuing committee top ensure continued negotiations that was aimed at sustainability. This was to be in place if the peace deal and the subsequent agreements between the parties involved could be implemented (Carter, 2006). This committee was to continue looking at and defining the modalities involved in the procedures of admission of those that had been displaced by the west bank and Gaza wars and to ensure that there would be continued peace and tranquility in the region. The committee was also to consider all other available alternatives to ensure that any other necessary measures were to be taken into account as far as matters of common interest were concerned.

2.6 Egypt and Israel

In the agreed frame work between Israel and Egypt there was to be seriousness in the way they tackled their own conflicts. This would mean that they were to resort never to engage in any form of unethical behavioral approach that would subdue the peace efforts. To this end they agreed to never use such principles of threats and instead employ the principles that had been put in place by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). They again opted to invite other parties to assist them in the resolution of the conflict between them (Collopy & Cronkite, 2000). 

They however agreed to fast track the peace effort to just cover a maximum of three months (Collopy & Cronkite, 2000). This meant that they would engage in a constructive deal that would last for quite a short period of time. These negotiation would herald the conclusion of the peace talk between Egypt and Israel followed by the modalities and the necessary steps to ensure that this peace deal remained in place for the times and season to come for all the people of this region.

3.0 Consequences of Camp David accord

The signing of the peace deal became of great importance to Egypt as a country. The influence of this peace deal became evident just as soon as the deal was signed. Israel began to improve her bilateral relations with Egypt. This relationship was beyond just the bilateral relations but it was also on cooperation in terms of trade. As part of this peace initiative the United States started its support on the military and economic aid to Egypt. The government of Egypt became a close ally to United States.  This was evident in the monetary support to the Egyptian military by the US and the improvement in the national cooperation of Egypt and the United States (Marshall Cavendish Corporation, 2003).

The signing of the peace accord at Camp David also saw various realignments between states. The strength and undisputed influence of the NATO on the Arab countries decreased considerably and there were cases of mistrust and suspicion amongst the member countries. This was triggered off by the action which Egypt took to side and sign agreement with the non Arabic countries. From the time of signing the deal, the close relationship between the Arabian countries worsened and reduced considerably. Each and every country therefore minded much on their own affairs and became less open to the others (Haqqi, 1988).

On the other hand, the regional integration and cooperation between Egypt and the other non Arabian countries took effect of economic growth and development. The trade and economic activities improved in the region marked by the peace deal. This saw a great deal of economic growth and sustainability to Egypt and Israel (Quandt, 1986).

The signing of the Camp David accord has also seen improved economic well being between the three countries. America has so far been of great help in financial terms to the two countries. Studies show that Egypt as a nation saw increased level of American financial support. It has received more than thirty eight billion dollars pumped into the country as the western money aid to improve on the projects and economic activities in the country (Quandt, 1986). The kind of support America has so far given to Israel is just enormous in terms of financial aid, political and military support as well as the increased level of mutual understanding and bilateral relationships.

The signing of the peace accord at camp David also saw the two leaders from Israel, prime minister Begin and the Egyptian president, Muhammad Al- Sadat become the duo who shared the Nobel peace prize of 1978. The act itself was a great boost to the increased level of friendship between the two countries to such extent that there was great level of openness and trust between them. This was very necessary fro the economic and regional integration of the two states (Quandt, 1986).

However, the signing of the peace deal also had its disadvantages. The action actually alienated Egypt from the close relationship it had enjoyed with the members of the NATO countries (Gad, 1991). As a result, it was viewed with a lot of contempt and was finally excommunicated from the organization network. It was viewed as a stab on the back of NATO and an outright betrayal for Egypt to sign peace accord with Israel under the guidelines of America.

4.0 conclusions

The peace accord was therefore a necessary and timely occurrence in the region. It paved way for increased and improved regional integration of the nations concerned. It is also important to note that the bold step which the Israel prime minister, Benin and the Egyptian president, El-Sadat took were very important for the economic growth and peaceful relations with their countries. The accord has major influence in the world order having influenced the operations of the United States as well. Today, it is one of the most sought and referred peace treaties ever been formed between the Arabian countries in one side and the Israel and United States on the other side.

Code: Sample20

Related essays

  1. History Essay on Different Events
  2. Rome and the Caesars
  3. Bloody Sunday and Some Mothers Son
  4. History of Worlds
X
 
On your first order you will receive 15% discount
Order now PRICES from $12.99/page ×
Live chat