As public support for the United States in Egypt increases as a direct result of phase one, we can then focus on a broader issue that is sure to impact US-Egyptian relations if it is not resolved. If we are able to improve the historically weary relations between Israel and Egypt we will be directly improving American-Egyptian relations. A mutual understanding between Egyptian and Israeli people will confirm stronger homeland security it all three countries of a complex triangle. Former Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, had been in alliance with the United States with regards to Israel and—despite it’s affiliation with a rooted radical Islamist group called the Muslim Brotherhood— the new government under Morsi confirms that relations will stay solid between the countries. However, with constantly changing governments and a changing global world it is time that the United States ensures that such peace will last and be as unwavering as possible through revisions and updates of international treaties such as the Camp David Accords. With an end goal of cutting military spending and maintaining American-Egyptian relations, we must first stabilize relations with Israel focusing on the Gaza strip, a current point of stress. The creation of a summit that meets every decade to update and re-implement the Camp David Accords in a way that is more compatible with the fluctuating international political field is crucial to ensuring long-term peace in the volatile region of the Middle East. As with any treaty, it is crucial to review past agreements from a new and updated perspective that takes constantly changing governments into consideration. The United States must push Egypt to support dialogue between Israel and Palestine and take a lead role while the United States takes more of a backseat. With implementation of phase one this will be possible and Egypt will want to secure a liaison with the US through Israel.
Within this newly developed summit, the presence of both Arab and western countries must be present. An update of the Camp David Accords will include a clarification on vague point listed on the document. To instill real change, specific resolutions need to be passed, especially in relation to the Gaza strip. We must convince Israel to stop its blockade of supplies to Gaza that has created a devastating and impoverished situation for Palestinians living there. If the US wants to see relations improve between Egypt and them, the US must be willing to be tough on Israel as well. With a revision of the Camp David Accords, both sides must evenly compromise for the betterment of the region. America will push these reforms by threatening to pause aid to both countries if they do not listen as well as to portray each countries interest in the compromise. Moreover, releasing political prisoners on both sides will lead to a more fair ground for both sides and calm tensions. If the United States can successfully follow through with this summit then multiple positive outcomes will arise. First, the Palestinians in Gaza will have food and won't depend on the United Nations, and in return would see Israel in a more positive light for clearing the blockade. Secondly, Hamas will be seen as less of a hero to the Palestinians because they won't need the social aid that Hamas donates to the stalled region (See appendix D on Hamas). Rather, Hamas will be seen increasingly as a terrorist since it would be bombing Israel that has initiated peace. Hamas’s influence will be decreased automatically by opening the Gaza strip. And most importantly, both Israel and Egypt will have more allies in the region with the success of this compromise. The United States has a vested interest in the stability of Egypt, Israel and the peace that is currently upheld. Updating the treaty reflects the ideals and necessities of modern times and changing governments. This must be done to continue meeting the best interests of all parties involved.
Although the Camp David Accords was truly a major breakthrough for Egypt, Israel and even the US, we must reorganize and use history to build a stronger future for the world. The agreement lacks specificity for reasons that play into the US’s advantage of keeping matters as least controversial as possible. The document states that “peace requires respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force” which although bring up a valid point, does not state its true intentions ( Camp David Accords). It is important that both Israel and Palestine are recognized and are protected, however there needs to be specific details that encompass how respect for sovereignty can be achieved. That is why, we have initiated SEAL phase two that ensures that prisoners of war are freed to calm tensions as well as completely eliminate blockades on the Gaza strip to create freedom for the Palestinian people. Although, a major concern is Hamas’s dangerous nature, “Israel and the United States need to abandon their policies of non-negotiation” towards Hamas that have been occurring sporadically and create a “dedicated program in which parties will agree to a sustained process which may take several years to complete” similar to our S.E.A.L blueprint (Sherifa D. Zuhur page 63). Moreover, in the summer of 2006, the International Crisis Group recommended that Hamas should be permitted to govern fully and in return should cease hostilities against Israel. Additionally, the embargo needs to end because it has caused too many hardships for the Palestinians (Zuhur 61). Such additions to the Camp David Accords will create an increasingly assertive voice that is needed to create sustained peace.
Obama’s administration has consistently called for new approaches to the Gaza issue and with the current change of authority around the world, this is the prime time to update the accords with exemplary new methods that advance and sustain long-term peace in the Middle Eastern region. Prominently, the current version of the accords encourages the Israeli military government to withdraw from Gaza as the existing military government, and respect Gaza as a place that has been freely elected by its inhabitants (Camp David Accords). However, crucial to the Arab-Israeli conflict at the moment is Hamas. The agreement doesn’t take into account the newly democratically elected Hamas government who currently has been key in negotiations for peace. Hamas’s aggressiveness compliments Israel’s belligerent responses which compromises long term sustainability. There has yet been a development of a “new strategy in response to Hamas’s consolidation of power” (Byman, Daniel 46). That is why we have developed a non-hostile policy that opens the Gaza strip while decreasing the influence of Hamas through Israel’s cooperation of continuing its aid to the area—which therefore lets the people in Gaza see Israel as caring for them to some degree. Moreover, the fact that S.E.A.L. phase three encourages the US to give up some of its military spending in Egypt and Israel and direct it in social aid programs to Palestinians in Gaza to create increased stability in the region and portray a positive image of the West is a plausible new approach. We would be exploiting “Hamas’s vulnerabilities, particularly its performances in governing Gaza, with a mix of coercions and concessions…” since it’s mission was to protect Palestine against Israel but with this new strategy Israel and the west have taken the first steps to becoming allies with Palestine (Byman, Daniel 47).