If so, then the democratic nature of the State has been usurped. In law, it is axiomatic that an agreement to enter into further agreements, is not, of itself binding, for lack of a meeting of the minds of the parties on specifics. With these unanswered questions go the issue of mutuality of promises, which are the essence of valid contractual formation. Duress, is essentially tantamount to force or the use of force by on party against the other. Unless the accords are documents of surrender, contracts made by force or the threat of force are null and void.
Coercion is achieved by the application of extra-contractual pressure.
The atmosphere of condemnation and vilification of Israel by international bodies and world media constituted illegal pressure which overbore the free exercise of will by the Israel negotiators and their mentors. The Arab League, the Arab Nations, the United Nations, the European Union, the United States of America, and the succession of visiting missionaries to Israel, fairly constitute international coercion upon a small State which has declared itself dependent upon foreign support. Undue influence is exemplified by the law's condemnation of contracts formed where one of the parties is totally submissive to the influence of the other. The classic example would be an agreement made by a dying patient with his nurse or doctor, subject to nullification because of the inequality of bargaining power. The freely arrived-at contractual ability of Israel was overwhelmed by the enormity of the influence of the United States and its power to purchase foreign policy.