The revolution and pacts (63). The 1949 Armistice Agreements (II). Cease-fire line or permanent borders? The General Armistice Agreements (GAAs) left about 70% of mandatory Palestine in Israeli hands. The rest of the area (the Gaza Strip and West Bank) stayed occupied by Egypt and Jordan respectively, until 1967. The GAAs were intended to serve only as interim agreements, until they would be replaced by permanent peace treaties. However, no peace treaties were actually signed until decades later. It was perfectly understood by all the parties concerned that the Agreements were not creating permanent or de jure borders. For instance, the Egyptian-Israeli agreement stated that “The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.” Similarly, the Jordanian-Israeli agreement stated “The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.” Thus, while Israel initially took GAAs as giving permanence to the demarcation lines as finite borders, awaiting only the final stage of signing full peace treaties, the Arab states interpreted them only as long-term cease-fire arrangements that did not end their status as belligerents and did not give any permanence to their different provisions. By 1956, it became clear that the armistice structure was crumbling. In March of that year, at the request of the US, the Security Council took up the general issue of compliance with the Armistice Agreements and its own resolutions. In April 1956, it requested the Secretary-General to arrange with the parties for the adoption of certain measures designed to reduce the tension. Dag Hammarskjöld, the UN Secretary General, thus visited the Middle East and submitted a progress report. In June, the Council called for reestablishment of full compliance with the Armistice Agreements, and requested the Secretary-General to continue his good offices. Hammarskjöld thus returned to the region in July and transmitted to the Council two more reports. Conditions continued to deteriorate, however, and cross-border raids increased in number and intensity in breach of the GAAs. In the years following the agreements, Israeli leaders consistently warned against turning the cease-fire line into the permanent border on the grounds of Israel's security. In each case a Mixed Armistice Commission (MAC) was formed to investigate complaints by either party and make regular reports to the UN Security Council. In the years following the signing of the agreements, all of the parties were condemned many times for violations. While Israel had a valid international border with Jordan and Egypt, with Syria it had only an armistice line that was agreed upon. With Lebanon the two coincided-an international border and an armistice line. With Palestine there has never been an international border but only armistice lines agreed by Jordan, Egypt and Israel. [email protected]
