The Realism of Peace: 47 Years Since the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty |
On the 47th anniversary of the signing of the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, it is easy to forget how much the gamble taken by Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat was considered a dangerous, almost delusional, fantasy.
Today, as we examine the map of Israel’s relations with Egypt, Jordan, and the “Abraham Accords” nations, one central conclusion emerges: Peace in the Middle East is not built on shared affection, but on strategic anchors far stronger than any storm.
Standing the Test of Fire: Why Doesn’t it Break?
The most remarkable data point is the sheer durability of these agreements. Since 1979, the region has faced countless upheavals:
Two Lebanon wars and two intense Palestinian Intifadas.
The “Arab Spring” which toppled seemingly stable regimes (including the temporary rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt).
The “Swords of Iron” Gaza war, accompanied by unprecedented regional tension.
Despite protests in the “Arab Street” and the recalling of ambassadors for consultations, not a single country has revoked its peace treaty with Israel. The reason is realist, not emotional. For Egypt and Jordan, peace is a primary security and economic asset, ensuring US aid and border stability. For the Gulf states, it is a strategic alliance against shared threats and a gateway to massive technological and economic potential.
The Dynamics of “Cold Peace” vs. “Warm Peace”
The existing relationships can be divided into two distinct models:
The Security Model (Egypt and Jordan): A “cold peace” at the grassroots level, but tight intelligence and military cooperation behind the scenes. This is a peace of survival and regional stability.
The Civil Model (UAE and Bahrain): A peace built from the outset on economic interests, tourism, and innovation. Even in times of security tension, the commercial and infrastructural ties created make a complete severance nearly impossible.
What Can We Infer for the Future?
The analysis of the past nearly five decades leads to three central insights for the future of the region:
Interest Trumps Ideology: Arab nations have proven they can separate the Palestinian issue from their own national interests. Peace has shifted from being a “prize” for Israel to a working tool for Arab regimes.
Treaties as a Basis for Restraint: Having open communication channels with Cairo and Amman allows Israel to manage complex crises, such as mediating hostage deals or calming tensions at the Temple Mount, in a way that would be impossible without formal peace.
The Potential for Expansion: The resilience of current agreements, even at the peak of conflict, sends a message of strength to other nations (such as Saudi Arabia). They see that peace with Israel is not a “broken reed,” but a covenant that holds even under extreme conditions.
As we look toward 2026, Israeli-Arab peace is not a rosy dream of a “New Middle East,” but a realist safety net. The fact that 47 years have passed and the peace treaty with Egypt remains intact is the ultimate proof that peace is not just possible, it is a strategic necessity for the survival of all nations in the region.