Alternate Timelines

What If The Camp David Accords Never Happened?

• Alternate Timelines Team • 18 min read
Political Historical Military International
Middle East Egypt Israel Anwar Sadat Menachem Begin Jimmy Carter peace process Arab-Israeli conflict

Exploring the alternate timeline where the landmark 1978 peace agreement between Egypt and Israel failed, potentially reshaping Middle Eastern geopolitics, security, and development for decades to come.

The Actual History

The Camp David Accords of 1978 represented a pivotal moment in Middle Eastern history, marking the first peace agreement between Israel and an Arab state. The path to this breakthrough began unexpectedly in November 1977, when Egyptian President Anwar Sadat made the unprecedented decision to visit Jerusalem and address the Israeli Knesset (parliament). This dramatic gesture—the first by an Arab leader to officially visit Israel—signaled Sadat's willingness to pursue peace after decades of hostility that had resulted in four wars between Egypt and Israel since 1948.

Following Sadat's initiative, U.S. President Jimmy Carter recognized an opportunity to broker a comprehensive peace agreement. After months of stalled diplomatic efforts, Carter invited both Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin to the presidential retreat at Camp David, Maryland, for intensive negotiations. From September 5-17, 1978, the three leaders engaged in thirteen days of difficult talks, with Carter mediating between the often antagonistic parties.

The negotiations nearly collapsed multiple times. Begin, a hardliner from the right-wing Likud party who had previously championed Israeli settlements in occupied territories, was reluctant to cede the Sinai Peninsula that Israel had captured during the 1967 Six-Day War. Sadat, under pressure from other Arab states who opposed separate peace with Israel, threatened to leave several times. Carter's persistence proved crucial, as he shuttled between the two leaders' cabins, drafting and redrafting proposals to bridge seemingly insurmountable differences.

The breakthrough came in the final days when Begin agreed to return the entire Sinai to Egyptian sovereignty and dismantle Israeli settlements there, while Sadat accepted limitations on Egyptian military deployment in the Sinai. The resulting "Framework for Peace in the Middle East" and "Framework for the Conclusion of a Peace Treaty Between Egypt and Israel" were signed on September 17, 1978. These documents set the stage for the formal Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty, signed on March 26, 1979, on the White House lawn.

The consequences were profound. Egypt regained sovereignty over the Sinai (completed in 1982), while Israel secured its first peace agreement with an Arab neighbor. Diplomatic relations were established, borders opened, and trade began. The United States strengthened its role as a regional power broker and solidified its relationships with both countries through substantial military and economic aid packages that continue to this day.

However, the Accords also had controversial outcomes. Egypt was suspended from the Arab League from 1979 to 1989 and faced criticism from other Arab states for making a separate peace. Sadat himself paid the ultimate price when he was assassinated in October 1981 by Egyptian Islamic Jihad members who opposed the treaty. The Palestinian aspects of the Accords, which called for autonomy in the West Bank and Gaza, were never fully implemented, leaving the Palestinian question unresolved.

Despite these complications, the Camp David Accords fundamentally altered the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East. They removed the region's most powerful Arab military from the conflict with Israel, substantially reducing the likelihood of another major Arab-Israeli war. They also established a precedent for peace through negotiation that would later influence agreements with Jordan and diplomatic initiatives with other Arab states. By 2025, the Egypt-Israel peace remains intact, outlasting regional upheaval including the 2011 Egyptian Revolution and subsequent political turmoil.

The Point of Divergence

What if the Camp David Accords had never happened? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where the negotiations at Camp David in September 1978 collapsed without producing an agreement, forever altering the trajectory of Middle Eastern politics and international relations.

Several plausible events could have caused this divergence. One possibility centers on Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin's last-minute objection to dismantling Israeli settlements in the Sinai. In our timeline, Begin reluctantly agreed to this concession after intense pressure from President Carter and his own advisors. But imagine if Begin had held firm, convinced that such a precedent would threaten Israel's security and its claim to other territories. Perhaps a stronger influence from his right-wing coalition partners or a more pessimistic assessment from Israeli intelligence about post-treaty security could have hardened his position beyond compromise.

Alternatively, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat might have withdrawn from the talks prematurely. Throughout the negotiations, Sadat threatened to leave several times, frustrated by what he perceived as Israeli intransigence. In this alternate timeline, a particularly heated exchange over Jerusalem or Palestinian autonomy could have prompted Sadat to follow through on this threat, concluding that the domestic and regional political costs of continued negotiations outweighed the potential benefits.

A third possibility lies with President Jimmy Carter himself. Carter's personal diplomacy was crucial to bridging gaps between the two sides. Perhaps in this alternate timeline, a domestic crisis pulled Carter's attention away at a critical juncture, or a diplomatic misstep—presenting a proposal that unknowingly crossed one leader's red line—triggered a collapse that his team couldn't recover from.

Most likely, it wouldn't be one single factor but a convergence of issues: Begin refusing to yield on settlements, Sadat facing mounting pressure from other Arab states (particularly Syria and the PLO) denouncing his initiative, and Carter unable to craft the creative compromises that historically bridged these differences. The result: after thirteen tense days, the Camp David summit ended with a terse statement acknowledging the parties' efforts but announcing no agreements. The three leaders returned to their capitals empty-handed, each facing the political consequences of a failed peace initiative.

This diplomatic failure would not just represent a missed opportunity but would set the Middle East on a dramatically different path—one where the fundamental dynamics of the Arab-Israeli conflict remained unchanged and the possibilities for comprehensive peace receded for generations.

Immediate Aftermath

Political Fallout in Egypt

For Anwar Sadat, the failure of Camp David would have represented a devastating political miscalculation. Having taken the unprecedented step of visiting Jerusalem in 1977—breaking Arab solidarity against recognizing Israel—he returned from Camp David with nothing to show for this controversial gambit. In the immediate aftermath:

  • Sadat's domestic opposition would capitalize on this failure, portraying him as naive for trusting the Israelis and Americans. The Muslim Brotherhood, leftist parties, and nationalist officers within the military would find common cause in criticizing his leadership.

  • Egypt's economic crisis, which had partly motivated Sadat's peace initiative (hoping for American economic aid and reduced military expenditure), would worsen. Without the promise of American financial assistance that accompanied the real-world Accords, Egypt would struggle to address its mounting debt and infrastructure needs.

  • Rather than attempting to salvage the peace process, Sadat might have felt compelled to reassert his Arab nationalist credentials. This could have included renewed military posturing along the Suez Canal and calls for Arab unity against Israel—essentially reversing much of his 1977 rhetoric.

Israeli Reaction and Policy Shifts

In Israel, the collapse of negotiations would have strengthened Begin's right-wing base while weakening moderates who had cautiously supported the peace initiative:

  • Begin would likely frame the failure as evidence of Arab intransigence, using it to justify accelerated settlement construction not just in the Sinai but in the West Bank and Gaza as well. The argument that "there is no partner for peace" would become the dominant narrative in Israeli politics.

  • Defense spending would remain at wartime levels, without the significant reductions that followed the actual peace treaty. This would strain Israel's already challenged economy in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

  • The failed summit would reinforce Israel's strategic doctrine emphasizing territorial depth for security. Without the precedent of land-for-peace with Egypt, Israeli military planners would maintain that holding the Sinai, Golan Heights, and West Bank was essential for protecting Israel's narrow pre-1967 borders.

Carter Administration's Response

For President Jimmy Carter, the collapse of Camp David would represent a major foreign policy setback:

  • The administration would likely attempt to keep diplomacy alive through shuttle diplomacy or alternative forums, but with diminished credibility and leverage with both parties.

  • Facing reelection in 1980, Carter would find his image as a peacemaker tarnished, further weakening his position against challenger Ronald Reagan amid the Iran hostage crisis and economic troubles.

  • Relations with both Egypt and Israel would cool, potentially reducing American influence in the region at a time when the Soviet Union was seeking to expand its own role in Middle Eastern affairs.

Regional Dynamics

The failure of Camp David would reverberate throughout the Middle East:

  • Egypt would likely remain more firmly within the Arab fold, preventing the isolation it experienced historically after signing peace with Israel. This could mean a more unified Arab front, but also continued resources devoted to military confrontation rather than economic development.

  • The Soviet Union would seek to capitalize on the failure of American-led diplomacy, potentially offering increased military and economic support to Syria and other frontline states to regain influence lost after Sadat's 1972 expulsion of Soviet advisors.

  • Palestinian representatives, excluded from the Camp David process, might have seen their position strengthened in the short term, as separate Egyptian-Israeli peace would no longer undermine Palestinian claims. However, this would not necessarily translate to progress toward Palestinian statehood.

Potential for Renewed Conflict

Perhaps most alarmingly, the risk of another Arab-Israeli war would have remained high:

  • By early 1979, tensions along the Egyptian-Israeli frontier would likely escalate, with both sides reinforcing their military positions along the Suez Canal.

  • Israel would maintain its substantial forces in the Sinai, viewing the peninsula as an essential buffer zone against potential Egyptian attack.

  • Limited border clashes could erupt into larger engagements, particularly if Sadat felt pressured to demonstrate his commitment to Arab causes through military action.

  • Syrian President Hafez al-Assad, sensing an opportunity to assert leadership in the Arab world, might press for coordinated military planning with Egypt against Israel, potentially reviving the joint command structures of previous conflicts.

By the end of 1979, the Middle East would face increasing militarization and polarization. The brief window of optimism opened by Sadat's 1977 Jerusalem visit would have firmly closed, replaced by renewed skepticism about the prospects for diplomatic solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The region would enter the 1980s on a trajectory of continued confrontation rather than the cautious rapprochement that characterized our timeline.

Long-term Impact

Transformation of Egypt's Trajectory

Without the peace treaty, Egypt's development over the following decades would have followed a radically different path:

Political Evolution

  • Sadat's assassination, which occurred in our timeline in 1981 as retaliation for the peace treaty, might have been avoided. However, his presidency would likely have been weakened by the failed peace initiative, potentially leading to his earlier removal through electoral defeat or military intervention.
  • Egypt would have maintained stronger ties with other Arab states but at the cost of the significant American aid (approximately $2 billion annually) it received after the Camp David Accords. This would have dramatically affected Egypt's military modernization and economic development.
  • The Egyptian military would have remained primarily Soviet-equipped and oriented toward conflict with Israel, rather than transforming into an American-supplied force focused on internal security and regional stability.

Economic Consequences

  • Without peace dividend and American economic assistance, Egypt's economic liberalization (the Infitah) would have been more limited. The country would have continued devoting a larger percentage of its GDP to defense spending, constraining investment in education, infrastructure, and social services.
  • Tourism, which became a key foreign currency earner for Egypt after normalization with Israel, would have developed more slowly without the stability that peace provided.
  • The Suez Canal, which reopened after the 1973 war but flourished under peace conditions, would have faced periodic disruptions during times of heightened tension, reducing this critical revenue source.

Israel's Development Without Egyptian Peace

Israel's trajectory would have been similarly altered across multiple dimensions:

Security Posture

  • Without secure southern borders, Israel would have maintained a larger standing military, with greater reserves and defense spending consistently above 15% of GDP (compared to gradual reductions after the 1979 peace treaty).
  • Israeli strategic doctrine would have continued emphasizing territorial depth rather than developing the technology-focused defense strategy that emerged in later decades.
  • The Israeli settlement enterprise would have extended significantly into the Sinai Peninsula, creating additional obstacles to any future peace initiatives and potentially absorbing resources that historically went to West Bank settlements.

Political Evolution

  • The Israeli peace movement, which gained momentum after Camp David, would have remained marginalized. The "land for peace" formula never having been validated, Israeli politics might have shifted even further rightward than in our timeline.
  • Without the Egyptian peace precedent, later initiatives like the Oslo Accords or peace with Jordan would have faced even greater skepticism and resistance.
  • Israel's international isolation would have intensified without the legitimacy conferred by peace with the largest Arab state, potentially accelerating development of its independent military capabilities, including its suspected nuclear arsenal.

Geopolitical Realignment

The absence of Camp David would have profoundly affected regional alliances and the Cold War dynamics in the Middle East:

Arab World Cohesion and Division

  • Egypt would likely have maintained its leadership position in the Arab world rather than facing the decade-long suspension from the Arab League it experienced historically.
  • Arab political and military coordination against Israel would have continued, potentially resulting in additional conventional conflicts in the 1980s or 1990s.
  • The Arab oil embargo leverage might have been employed more frequently against Western nations perceived as supporting Israel, affecting global energy markets and economic development.

Soviet-American Competition

  • The Soviet Union would have retained greater influence in the region, particularly with a continued military relationship with Egypt.
  • The United States would have struggled to establish the regional security framework it built after Camp David, potentially affecting its ability to respond to events like Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait.
  • The 1991 Madrid Peace Conference, which built on Camp David's legacy, would never have materialized in the same form, limiting multilateral peace efforts.

The Palestinian Question

Without Camp David's framework for addressing Palestinian autonomy (however limited its implementation):

  • The PLO's position would have evolved differently, possibly maintaining its revolutionary stance longer without the precedent of Arab-Israeli diplomatic normalization.
  • The First Intifada (1987-1993) might have emerged earlier in response to continued occupation without diplomatic horizons, potentially triggering wider regional conflict.
  • Palestinian statehood aspirations would remain integrated within broader Arab-Israeli antagonism rather than emerging as a distinct diplomatic track.
  • Hamas, which rose partly in opposition to the PLO's eventual diplomatic approach, might have faced a different evolutionary path in Palestinian politics.

Contemporary Middle East (2000-2025)

By the present day, a Middle East without the Camp David precedent would be substantially different:

Conflict Patterns

  • Additional Egyptian-Israeli wars would likely have occurred, possibly in the 1980s or during the regional instability following the 1991 Gulf War.
  • The region would have experienced greater conventional military confrontations rather than the asymmetric conflicts that characterized our timeline's post-Camp David era.
  • Regional military spending would be substantially higher across all major powers, with less investment in economic development and infrastructure.

Diplomatic Framework

  • The absence of the Egyptian-Israeli peace model would have meant no template for subsequent agreements. Jordan's 1994 peace treaty with Israel and the more recent Abraham Accords normalizing relations between Israel and several Gulf states would have been almost unimaginable.
  • Regional cooperation mechanisms would be weaker, with fewer channels for crisis management during periods of heightened tension.
  • The "land for peace" formula never having been established as viable, alternative approaches to conflict resolution would have emerged, potentially emphasizing containment rather than resolution.

The Arab Spring and Beyond

  • Egypt's 2011 revolution might have unfolded very differently—perhaps more violently—in a country that remained on military footing against Israel and with stronger ties to other Arab regimes.
  • The Egyptian military, without its decades-long relationship with the United States, might have responded more forcefully to popular protests, potentially resulting in civil conflict rather than the managed transition that occurred.
  • Israel, facing a more hostile neighborhood, might have responded more aggressively to regional instability, potentially intervening more directly in conflicts in neighboring states.

By 2025, the Middle East would likely feature higher militarization, lower economic integration, fewer diplomatic channels between adversaries, and more entrenched positions on territorial disputes. The human cost—in lives lost to continued conflicts, resources diverted from development, and opportunities for cooperation squandered—would be immeasurable, illustrating the profound historical significance of the Camp David Accords as a turning point that, in our timeline, helped prevent decades of continued conventional warfare.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Amira Hassan, Professor of Middle Eastern Politics at Georgetown University, offers this perspective: "The failure of Camp David would have locked Egypt and Israel into a costly security dilemma that neither could afford indefinitely. Without the treaty, Egypt would have remained militarily stronger relative to Israel than it ultimately became after switching from Soviet to American equipment, but economically far weaker. By the 1990s, this contradiction would have become untenable. I believe we would have seen either another major war or a later, more desperate peace initiative—but one negotiated under far less favorable conditions and probably missing the comprehensive framework that Carter helped establish. The absence of Camp David would represent not just a delayed peace but a fundamentally different Middle East, one where the possibility of conventional interstate warfare remained the primary security concern rather than the asymmetric threats that eventually came to dominate."

Professor David Landau, Senior Fellow at the Israeli Institute for National Security Studies, suggests: "The Camp David framework's collapse would have reinforced the zero-sum thinking that dominated prior decades. Israel's security doctrine would have remained fixated on territorial depth rather than evolving toward technological superiority and strategic partnerships. Israeli society would have developed differently too—the economic liberalization of the 1980s and 1990s would have been constrained by higher defense burdens, and the political spectrum would have shifted rightward without the demonstration that territorial compromise could enhance security rather than diminish it. Most significantly, the psychological barrier to peace—the belief that Arabs would never accept Israel's existence—would have persisted much longer, perhaps indefinitely. The tragedy is that both societies would have sacrificed so much prosperity and human development to maintain a conflict that, as we've seen, was not actually immutable."

Dr. Mohammed al-Masri, Director of the Center for Strategic Studies at the University of Jordan, provides this analysis: "While Camp David is often celebrated in Western diplomatic circles, we must acknowledge its mixed legacy in the Arab world. Nevertheless, its absence would have profoundly affected regional development. Jordan's own peace treaty with Israel would have been politically impossible without Egypt having broken the taboo. The perpetuation of the conventional military threat to Israel would have made Israeli concessions on any front nearly unimaginable. Perhaps most consequentially, the Palestinian question would have remained subsumed within broader Arab-Israeli antagonism rather than emerging as a distinct issue requiring its own resolution process. The Oslo framework, flawed as it was, could never have emerged in a region where no Arab state had demonstrated that negotiation with Israel could yield tangible territorial gains. The tragedy of the missing Camp David would be measured not just in potential wars fought, but in the opportunities for graduated conflict transformation never realized."

Further Reading

Share this scenario:

Explore More Scenarios