From the Yom Kippur War to peace with Egypt: the stages that should not be skipped

Peace between Israel and Egypt was not signed at the end of the Yom Kippur War. Between the war and the treaty signed on 26 March 1979 came disengagement, an interim arrangement, direct contacts and American mediation. Each stage changed relations, but none guaranteed the next one's success in advance.

The familiar shorthand, from war to Camp David to peace, leaves out the diplomatic work along the way. The intervening stages show precisely the difference between stopping the shooting, reducing the risk of renewed fighting and agreeing to end the state of war.

First, the armies had to be separated

The first disengagement agreement between Israel and Egypt was reached on 18 January 1974. The Office of the Historian at the US Department of State describes Henry Kissinger's mediation and discussions about force positions, areas where armour would be restricted and the types of equipment to be limited. The agreement included separation through a UN buffer zone.

This answered an urgent military question: how to move opposing forces away from one another and regulate their deployment. It did not yet amount to agreement on full diplomatic relations. The distinction matters because a limited arrangement can be valuable even while the wider dispute continues.

The interim agreement expanded the separation

On 4 September 1975, Israel and Egypt signed a further interim agreement. According to the same account, it included an additional Israeli withdrawal eastwards in Sinai and greater separation between the forces. The negotiations were longer and more difficult than those leading to the first agreement.

The dates alone can create an impression of a continuous process. In practice, each agreement required a new consensus on risks, commitments and deployment on the ground. The participants in 1974 cannot be credited with knowing a peace treaty would be signed five years later.

One visit broke the deadlock

Before reaching Camp David, a psychological barrier had to be broken. On 19 November 1977, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat landed in Israel, and the next day addressed the Knesset plenum. It was the first visit to Israel by an Arab leader, just days after Sadat publicly declared his willingness to come to Jerusalem to talk about peace.

The visit did not settle any dispute. It changed what seemed possible. Until then, contacts between Israel and Egypt had mainly passed through intermediaries, and an open meeting between their leaders was considered almost unthinkable. After November 1977, the question was no longer whether to talk, but about what and on what terms. That was precisely where American mediation entered its new phase.

Camp David provided a framework, not the peace treaty itself

Anwar Sadat's initiative to visit Jerusalem in November 1977 advanced direct contacts, but did not resolve the disagreements. According to the American account of the Camp David process, the September 1978 summit involving Menachem Begin, Sadat and Jimmy Carter produced two framework documents: one for peace between Egypt and Israel, and another for a broader framework that addressed Palestinian self-government in the West Bank and Gaza.

The difference between a framework and a treaty is not technical. A framework can establish a direction and principles, whereas a treaty must settle practical obligations. Disagreements remained after the summit, and the final wording required further months of negotiation.

What changed in the 1979 treaty

The peace treaty's text reveals the change beyond the photograph of the signing ceremony. It stipulated an end to the state of war and the establishment of peace upon the exchange of instruments of ratification, and addressed Israeli withdrawal from Sinai, the border and normal relations. It also included a framework for security arrangements.

These were commitments of a different kind from those intended to separate forces after a battle. At the same time, a treaty between two states is not equivalent to resolving the entire regional conflict. The success of the Egyptian track does not mean every element discussed at Camp David was implemented in the same way.

After the signing: withdrawal from Sinai and its cost

The treaty was signed in 1979, but many of its obligations were fulfilled only later, in stages. Israel completed its withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula in April 1982, including the evacuation of communities in the Yamit region. The evacuation was one of the most difficult moments in Israeli society in those years, a reminder that peace also entails painful concessions on the ground.

Peace carried a cost in Egypt too. Egypt was suspended from the Arab League after the signing, and Sadat himself was assassinated in October 1981, before the withdrawal was completed. Yet peace held. The final border dispute, over Taba, was resolved through international arbitration, and the area was transferred to Egypt in 1989. This sequence illustrates that a treaty is not the end of the road, but the beginning of a long task of implementation.

The five stages at a glance

• January 1974, the first disengagement agreement: separating the armies and establishing a UN-supervised buffer zone.
• September 1975, the interim agreement: a further Israeli withdrawal in Sinai and greater separation.
• November 1977, Sadat's visit to Jerusalem: a move from indirect contacts to open discussion between leaders.
• September 1978, the Camp David Accords: two framework documents setting a direction and principles.
• March 1979, the peace treaty: ending the state of war, withdrawal from Sinai, a border and normal relations.

This list is particularly useful for anyone studying the subject or explaining it to others. It shows that each stage rested on the previous one, but also that each was a separate decision with its own cost and risk. Skipping a stage means losing an understanding of why this peace was built as it was, and why it endured through difficult periods.

Reading the sequence without treating it as a predetermined outcome

When looking for background, including through the Wars of Israel homepage, distinguish the date of a battle, the date of an interim agreement and the date of a peace treaty. These are not different names for the same endpoint.

The path from 1973 to 1979 shows how resolving a defined military problem can lead towards a broader agreement. It does not prove that war necessarily produces peace. The agreements document decisions made along the way, not an outcome guaranteed on the day the fighting stopped.