AUC Forum Examines Legacy of Camp David Accords

by Lynn Mahoney

The historic meeting at Camp David in 1978 between Egypt’s President Anwar Sadat and Israel’s Prime Minister Menachem Begin marked the beginning of a new era in Middle East diplomacy. It was examined at The American University in Cairo’s Nov. 14 forum, “18 Years After Camp David: Egypt’s Role in the Middle East Peace Process,” by a panel of three experts who assessed Egypt’s role in the quest for a broader and more comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace.

Paul B. Hannon, vice-chairman of the AUC Board of Trustees, presided over the panel at the Union Club in New York City, which included Nabil Elaraby, permanent representative of Egypt to the United Nations; Dr. Kenneth W. Stein, director, Middle East Research Program, Emory University; and Dr. Bahgat Korany, professor of political science, University of Montreal.

Reflecting on the experiences of his diplomatic career, Dr. Elaraby, a participant at Camp David, said that Egypt, throughout the past 18 years, has never lost sight of or faith in the objectives of Camp David, namely, a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East. That historic meeting ushered in a new era in the Middle East, he said, and eroded long-held psychological barriers of mistrust and suspicion between the Arabs and the Israelis, making it possible for both sides to hold such dialogues as the recent third economic summit in Cairo. Dr. Elaraby also said that Camp David verified that security must be a reciprocal agreement between involved parties, and marked the first time Israel formally recognized the Palestinian issue.

Dr. Elaraby noted that in the three years following the Oslo accords in September 1993, he personally felt that the process was gaining momentum, and that a small, but positive edifice was being created which would lead to economic prosperity, justice, and security for the region. Unfortunately, that vision was shattered after the election of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and the rise of the Likud Party in Israel, Dr. Elaraby observed. He said that Egypt was willing to turn a “blind eye” to the Likud Party’s platform following the elections and to allow the Netanyahu government time to organize itself. But since the Likud has turned away from some of the fundamental philosophical principles established by the peace processsuch as land for peace and the recognition that the Oslo accords are “a living reality” Egypt’s patience is dwindling.

In his conclusions, Dr. Elaraby recognized that important factors in the continuing negotiations have been the United States’ role as an “honest broker,” Egypt’s desire to expand peace throughout the Middle East, and Israel’s realization of the economic advantages of peace. “It will take some time to resuscitate the peace process now, but it must be done,” Dr. Elaraby affirmed. “I believe that the light is clearly at the end of the tunnel, and as President Mubarak rightly pointed out recently, the Middle East needs people who dare to look beyond the horizon.”

Dr. Stein discussed Egyptian-Israeli relations throughout the past 18 years from the Israeli perspective and found that common threads throughout the process have been opposing foreign policy objectives and reciprocal mistrust. The current tension in the Egyptian-Israeli relationship is not an “aberration,” he said. Despite the strained relations between the two countries, however, Dr. Stein said he does not subscribe to the notion that the peace process will be scrapped, or is dead. He stressed that it has withstood a variety of changesfrom new political parties to fluctuating regional relations in both Egypt and Israeland should weather this troublesome period.

Differing foreign policy objectives have also played a decisive role before and after Camp David, he continued. High on Egypt’s foreign policy “wish list” was the return of Sinai, good relations with the United States, and maintaining Cairo’s role as a major power base in the Arab world. Likewise, Israel’s foreign policy objectives focused on building a close relationship with the U.S., maintaining security at home, and removing Egypt from the Arab military coalition which threatened the preservation of the Israeli state.

One way to summarize the proceedings at Camp David, according to Dr. Stein, is to say, “They agreed to disagree.” During the 1970s and 1980s, several factors contributed to each country’s mutual mistrust of one another. The negative Egyptian press on Israel often plagued the Israeli government. Israel’s physical aggression toward its Arab neighborsthe June 1982 invasion of Lebanon, reaction to the intifada in 1987, the Hebron massacre in 1994, and the tunnel incident of September 1996 likewise have ultimately caused Egypt to mistrust Israeli actions.

Commenting on the pace of the peace process, Dr. Stein noted that perceptions of time are markedly different between the Egyptians and the Israelis. Egypt wishes that Israel would “work with a clock” instead of a “calendar,” while the Israelis are more comfortable with a slow negotiation pace. “Israel’s fear,” Dr. Stein said, “is that she is being cut down to size in phases, and ultimately at some point down the road there will be another major Arab onslaught against the state of Israel. This perception about the future plays a heavy role in Israeli decision making.”

Bahgat Korany argued that the Camp David agreement was pivotal in international diplomatic relations since it was signed by three countries, reinforced Egypt’s role as a regional and central superpower, and, by initiating a new set of norms, principles and behavior, created a “new regional order” in the Middle East.

Dr. Korany said that prior to the signing of the Camp David agreement, world perceptions of the Middle East were markedly different than they are today. Korany suggested that the third economic summit in Cairo can be seen as having its origins in Camp David.

Concluding, Dr. Korany asked, “If Camp David is a victorious regional order, is it a triumphant one? Is it a full international regime? Is it capable of mobilizing not only statesmen but people to defend it? And to achieve stability beyond whimsical leadership and radical social movement?” History has shown, he said, that the establishment of order precedes the establishment of full justice. In the case of the peace process and in following the vision of Camp David, Dr. Korany argued that justice must follow swiftly, without delay, and that order needs to be legitimized by the people, not only by the leaders and diplomats of each state.

Established in October 1992, the AUC Forum is a semi-annual panel discussion held in New York to examine economic, social, and cultural issues of importance to Egypt and the Middle East. The next Forum will be in May 1997. For further information contact Mary Judith Sundstrom at The American University in Cairo, 866 United Nations Plaza, Suite 517, New York, NY 10017-1889, (212) 421-6320.