Conclusion ••• 365talks, and threatened reprisals if it signed a treaty. Hard-line Israelis warned
that they would block any pullout from the lands Begin had offered to re¬
turn to Egypt.
Concerned about the eroding US position in the Middle East, Carter de¬
cided in early March 1979 to fly to Cairo and Jerusalem to complete negoti¬
ations for the peace accord. His risky venture paid off, as Carter and his
aides managed to reconcile the differences between Sadat and Begin. A
complex treaty, formally ending the state of war between Egypt and Israel,
was signed on the White House lawn on 26 March 1979. It would prove
costly for the US, both economically and politically. Begin quickly reneged
on promises not to add Jewish settlements on the West Bank, leaving Sadat
looking as if he had betrayed the Palestinians. Nearly all the other Arab gov¬
ernments condemned the treaty and accused Sadat of treason. Understand¬
ably, the Palestinians felt betrayed most of all. A real chance for peace had
foundered, mainly because Israel was determined to keep the West Bank
and Gaza. Egypt and Israel's agreement to hold talks on Palestinian auton¬
omy was a diplomatic fig leaf. Washington wanted peace, but most Middle
Eastern peoples rejected the terms accepted by Cairo and Jerusalem.CONCLUSIONWhat do we mean by peace? Up to now we have assumed that everyone
knows what peace is. But do we? One simple answer is that peace is the ab¬
sence of conflict. But in the Middle East many conflicts smolder for years,
then flare up suddenly. The Arab-Israeli conflict was muted between 1956
and 1967, and yet there was no peace. We could define peace in another
way: a condition of harmony within and among every person, every group,
and every nation in the world. Two people cannot be at peace with each
other unless they feel at peace with themselves. If the members of a group
disagree among themselves, they cannot agree with another group. A coun¬
try riven with factional, sectional, or ethnic hostility cannot make peace
with another state. Such an idyllic condition rarely occurs in human life,
though. Most disputes in history have just died down, enabling the parties
to stop quarreling, even if they have failed to reach an accord.
When addressing the question of peace with Israel, some Arabs say they
will accept salam but not sulh. What is the difference? Both words mean
"peace," but in modern usage salam connotes a temporary cessation of hos¬
tilities and sulh means reconciliation. Arabs who make this distinction may
envisage an armistice with Israel, a respite from hostilities, in which they