Why did Egypt establish diplomatic relationship with Israel and did that decision pay off?

As far as I recall, Anwar Sadat was able to convince his people and his followers that establishing diplomatic relationship with Israel will open the door of rapid economic development of Egypt.

My first question is, how did he deduce that ?

My second question is, did we really see that to happen (I guess a big NO)?

And, my third question is, if NOT, why?

  • Well, a quick snarky answer to (3) is "because he was assassinated by opponents before the work could be completed, and who then ensured that it did not proceed." – Pieter Geerkens Apr 28 '17 at 20:30

The answer is a combination of military and political reasons.

Israel had survived several wars up to this point, from enemies who outnumbered and wanted to completely destroy them. Their success had created a strong belief in Israeli might, both internally and externally. This war changed their outlook.

Israel had caused severe damage to its enemies and had occupied the Sinai Peninsula. A continuation of the war would have cost Egypt dearly to recapture it. However the war was not totally successful for Israel. They had an army in Egypt that was surrounded and would have taken heavy casualties to be extracted (Politically catastrophic as Israel has always been sensitive to casualties due to their low population). The Israeli cost of the war was high due to being caught unaware. Therefore, both parties wanted a way out of the war with the least amount of damage.

From a real politik perspective, if Egypt has failed to destroy Israel and conceivably would continue to fail, it would be more beneficial to acknowledge the current state of affairs and act accordingly rather than beat its head against a wall over and over. Israel would have been more eager to seek a peace, as the war had shaken their psyche, and having lost their "invincible" status they anticipated further attacks from previously beaten enemies.

In exchange for returning Sinai, Egypt acknowledged Israel's existence. I believe there was a political reason, in terms of Egypt was wary of another Arab power (probably Saudi Arabia).

Economically, Egypt made the transition from the Soviet bloc to the Anglo bloc. This realignment with the Americans brought large amounts of Economic and Military aid, as well as diplomatic and trade concessions with the members of the American Sphere. The thawing of relations was very beneficial to both parties. Economically for Egypt, and militarily for Israel.

  • 3
    Egypt recognized Israel's existance, not its right to exist. Egyptians are, in fact, very particular about this difference. – sds Apr 27 '17 at 19:26
  • 2
    I think it is worth noting that, on the Israeli side, they had finally come up against an Arab army that was worthy of respect. The Egyptian assault across the Suez Canal on Yom Kippur was well planned, well run , and a complete secret up until its launch. Staring at the facts that this was an army that they might not always be able to best in combat, it seems to me that the Israeli stance in negotiations softened considerably, accepting an Egyptian position of simply acknowledging Israel's existence but not its right to exist. – Pieter Geerkens Apr 27 '17 at 20:38
  • 2
    @user2259716: I think Sadat received terms he could live with, that Nasser was never offered. (Yeah, I recognize the irony in that last sentence; I still remember where I was when I heard of his assassination.) – Pieter Geerkens Apr 27 '17 at 21:21
  • 1
    @PieterGeerkens Yeah, me too. Not a good day. – KorvinStarmast Apr 28 '17 at 3:27
  • 1
    @user2259716 Just a nitpick on English usage, but the term is bloc, not block. (Sovier bloc versus Anglo bloc). I grew up in the Cold War, those terms were used with it spelled like that. I agree with your "beneficial to both parties" assessment. – KorvinStarmast Apr 28 '17 at 3:28

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy