Abstract
The problem of the possible existence of Israeli military bases within Arab territories occupied in June 1967 following prospective peace arrangements between Israel and Arab states is examined from a 20th century historical perspective. The research specifies seven historic arrangements made subsequent to wars or conflicts under which one party was permitted military presence within the other's territory. It then suggests a typology and general characteristics of this group of peace treaties which has so far been ignored as a group in various studies dealing with resolution of conflicts, end of wars, and international law. It is claimed first that this researched element is an exception in our century's peace agreements; second, that there are some basic common conditions leading to such treaties; third, that the substantial difference among them as far as the degree of voluntarism connected with the consent to foreign presence is concerned, enables a useful division to be made into 'enforced agreements' on the one hand and 'common interest agreements' on the other; and fourth, that the extent of voluntarism crucially determined the success of the arrangements with regard to the parties' interests and the time within which they were effective.
Although neither a Syrian—Israeli peace treaty under which some Israeli military presence is maintained on the Golan Heights nor a treaty with Jordan under which such presence is maintained on the West Bank directly fit the typology suggested, this typology may nevertheless be employed to illuminate various aspects of these possible agreements. It is suggested that the only peace treaty which would accurately be in accordance with the typology is a treaty between Israel and a Palestinian state. It would form part of the 'enforced agreements' category.
Drawing on the analysis, the article proposes some policy implications for Israel in this issue.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.