The phrase “land for peace” is tied to U.N. Security Council Resolution 242. The Council passed it after the 1967 war. The text linked Israeli withdrawal to an end to war. It also affirmed each state’s right to live within secure and recognized borders.
The deals grouped under this phrase are not all alike. Some are treaties between states. Others separate armies, set up temporary self-rule, or record a one-sided pullout. Each form creates different duties and risks.
Each deal should be judged by the terms it actually set.
1. State-to-state treaties
Egypt and Jordan offer the clearest cases of treaty peace. The Camp David Accords led to the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty. Israel left all of Sinai. Egypt offered peace, recognition, and security rules in return. A monitoring system helped enforce the terms. The State Department’s Office of the Historian calls Camp David the break that made this first Arab-Israeli treaty possible.
The 1994 Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty involved less land. It still had major legal force. It fixed the border, dealt with special-use areas, and set water rules. It also ended the state of war. The Yale Avalon Project has the treaty and its annexes.
Both treaties remain in force. Earlier deals known as Sinai I and Sinai II helped move Egypt and Israel from war to peace.
2. Military separation without peace
The 1974 Israel-Syria Separation of Forces Agreement did not bring recognition or normal ties. It drew a line between the armies and created a buffer zone. Security Council Resolution 350 also created the UN Disengagement Observer Force. The system reduced direct fighting on a front marked by wars in 1948, 1967, and 1973.
The result was long quiet, not peace. This label gives the deal credit for its military effect without adding a diplomatic result it never achieved.
3. Interim Palestinian self-government
The Oslo deals created a different form of compromise. Israel recognized the PLO. It left set areas and gave some duties to Palestinian bodies. The 1993 Declaration of Principles, the 1994 Gaza-Jericho Agreement, and the 1995 Interim Agreement were temporary steps. Later talks were meant to settle the final terms.
Those talks did not produce a final deal or lasting peace. The Office of the Historian says the process stalled. Violence rose by the end of the Clinton years. Land and power did change hands. Weak government, armed rivals, and lost trust still broke the process.
4. Unilateral withdrawal
The 2005 Gaza disengagement was one-sided. Israel removed every settlement and permanent military base from inside Gaza. It had no signed peace deal, matching Palestinian duties, or lasting security plan.
The Bush-Sharon exchange of April 14, 2004 described a one-sided step. It was meant to change the security and political setting. CRS reporting on Hamas records what followed. Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian election, took Gaza in 2007, and fought repeated wars with Israel.
What can be concluded
Israel has traded land for formal peace, most clearly with Egypt. It also accepted land deals with Jordan, Syria, and the PLO. In Gaza, it left on its own. These records disprove the claim that Israel has never given up land or control.
The same record does not show that every deal brings peace. Results were strongest when states could sign and enforce matching duties. The Palestinian cases had split rule, armed rivals, open questions of sovereignty, or no partner to sign a deal.
These cases cannot tell us if a future Palestinian state will succeed. Nor can they select a future security plan. They do show what readers must compare: the terms, the power of each signer, and the means to enforce the deal.