“[M]odern diplomatic history contains no successes in the settlement of long-term political conflicts by mediation that seeks to replace direct discourse,” Israel’s former Foreign Minister Abba Eban explained. Later, as it turned out, the world received a glimpse of what might have resulted from an international approach as the United Nations General Assembly repeatedly ignored the progress made in the Camp David Accords and often denounced Egypt’s pursuit of negotiations with Israel. There, the environment grew so hostile that Andrew Young, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations complained that the UN was only hindering the pursuit of peace.

In the days leading up to President Sadat’s visit to Jerusalem, President Sadat appointed Hassan el-Tohamy, his closest ally, to represent him in laying the groundwork for the visit, while Prime Minister Begin appointed his foreign minister Moshe Dayan. Both men had the authority to speak for their leaders. This capacity facilitated the process, as their agreement on issues was all but binding. Later, negotiations mediated by U.S. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance floundered precisely because the Egyptian and Israeli representatives lacked the necessary negotiating authority to conclude an agreement. In addition, it is sometimes necessary for the parties to negotiate at the highest levels.

The same principle also holds true for those playing a mediation role. The final breakthrough that led to the historic peace agreement occurred on account of President Carter’s personal diplomacy. He traveled to the Middle East to break a negotiating impasse, stressed the importance of compromise on the sticking points, and told both President Sadat and Prime Minister Begin that he would leave region if the necessary concessions were not made. With the finality of the President’s decision setting in, both parties gave ground and reached agreement. That agreement still holds today.