Home » 1949 Armistice Agreement Line

Whether and to what extent Israel should withdraw its population and armed forces from its side of the Green Line remains a crucial issue in some discussions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There is an almost unanimous international consensus that Israel should withdraw to its side of the line. This was expressed during the annual vote of the United Nations General Assembly on the peaceful solution of the Palestinian question. [23] Although challenged by Israel, UNITED Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (UNSC 242)[24] set out the interpretation of international law with respect to the Palestinian territory. Rosenthal, Yemima, ed. Documents on the Foreign Policy of Israel., Vol. 3: Armistice Negotiations with the Arab States, December 1948–July 1949. Jerusalem: Israel State Archives, 1983. The status quo culminated on September 12. In February 1949, he was assassinated by Hassan al-Banna, the leader of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood group. Israel threatened to break off the talks, after which the US called on the parties to carry them out. In a speech in December 1969, U.S. Secretary of State William P.

Rogers stated that “any changes to the already existing 1949 armistice lines should not reflect the weight of conquest and should be limited to insignificant changes necessary for mutual security. We do not support expansionism. [22] Stephen M. Schwebel, a Harvard law professor, responded that ” The changes to the 1949 armistice lines between these states in the former Palestinian territory are legal (but not necessarily desirable), whether these changes are “insignificant changes necessary for mutual security” or more substantial changes – such as the recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the whole of Jerusalem. In a footnote, he wrote: “It should be added that the Armistice Agreements of 1949 expressly preserved the land claims of all parties and did not purport to set definitive boundaries between them.” [22] The Chairman of the United Nations Joint Commission, Colonel Garrison B. Coverdale (UNITED States), urged a solution to this problem to be found in the Joint Ceasefire Commission in a friendly spirit and a UN spirit. After some hesitation, this procedure was accepted and finally an agreement was reached under which the ceasefire demarcation line was changed to place Wadi Fukin under Jordanian authority, which in turn agreed to transfer uninhabited but fertile territory south of Bethlehem to Israeli control. [9] The ceasefire agreements were clear (at Arab insistence) that they did not create permanent borders. The Israeli-Egyptian agreement states: “The ceasefire demarcation line shall in no way be construed as a political or territorial border and shall be demarcated without prejudice to the rights, claims and positions of any of the parties to the ceasefire with regard to the final settlement of the Palestinian question.” [1] 3. It is also recognized that any Member State may assert rights, claims or interests of a non-military nature in the territory of Palestine covered by this Agreement and that, since such rights, claims or interests of a non-military nature are mutually excluded from ceasefire negotiations, shall be the subject of a subsequent settlement at the discretion of the Parties.

It is emphasized that this Agreement is not intended to establish, recognize, strengthen, weaken or abolish in any way any territorial, liberal or other rights, claims or interests that may be claimed by any Party in the territory of Palestine or in any part or place covered by this Agreement. if such rights, claims or interests claimed arise from Security Council resolutions, including resolution 4. November 1948 and the Memorandum of 13 November 1948 on their implementation, or from another source. The provisions of this Agreement shall be determined solely by military considerations and shall apply only for the duration of the ceasefire. The first GAA was signed on February 24, 1949 by Colonel Mohammad Ibrahim Sayf el-Din for Egypt and Walter Eytan for Israel on the Greek island of Rhodes. It provided, inter alia, for large demilitarized zones in the Nitzana-AbuAgayla sector. On the other hand, he did not specify the rights of Israeli navigation through the Suez Canal and the Strait of Tiran. Israel has deemed the closure of these waterways incompatible with international law and the provisions of the ceasefire and has repeatedly drawn the attention of the UN Security Council to the blockade of Suez. But neither the support in the form of UN Security Council resolution 95 (1951) nor the military gains of the 1956 Sinai campaign succeeded in changing Egypt`s vision, and the blockade of the canal lasted thirty years. United Nations-sponsored armistice agreements signed in 1949 between the State of Israel and four Arab States. From the beginning, the Arab-Israeli GAA has been plagued by discord and disagreement. A fundamental disagreement was the extent of the responsibility that States parties should assume for the criminal and often violent activities of irregulars crossing demarcation borders.

The scale of such infiltration in the early 1950s worried Israelis, and the failure of UNTSO and several Arab states to contain it effectively triggered serious retaliation by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), which itself also violated the GAA. Perhaps the most serious disagreement concerned the nature of the agreements signed. While Israel regarded them as permanent for the demarcation lines as finite borders and was only waiting for the final phase of the signing of the comprehensive peace treaties, the Arab States interpreted them only as long-term ceasefire agreements that did not end their status as belligerents and did not give coherence to their various provisions. July 25, 26 and 27. In May, both sides filed complaints about alleged violations of the Comprehensive Ceasefire Agreement by civilians and military personnel in the Al-Dawayima area. At an emergency meeting of the Joint Ceasefire Commission, the two sides agreed on a joint investigation. United Nations observers accompanied the representatives to the demarcation line to establish the facts. Despite the previously agreed ceasefire, a violent fire broke out during the investigation. Israeli troops had fired across the demarcation line at Jordanians on Jordanian territory in response to Jordanian farmers illegally crossing the border, and Israeli soldiers were suspected of burning crops on Jordanian territory. The origin of the incident was the illegal cultivation of land on Israeli territory by Jordanians.

Armed Jordanians had entered Israeli territory to harvest crops, and other Jordanians had fired over the demarcation line to protect the pickers. .