The revolution and pacts (67). The 1949 Armistice Agreements (V). The Syrian front. Three different lines marked the boundary between Syria and Israel before the Six-Day War of 1967: the international border from the Mandate period, the armistice line of 1949, and the deployment of forces line on June 4, 1967, from which the Six-Day War opened. The most arduous Arab-Israel talks on Armistice Agreements were those between Syria and Israel. Syria is the only Arab State that held a strategically important area in the territory allotted to Israel by the UN Partition Plan. After three and a half months of argument, Syria agreed to withdraw from Mishmar Ha-yarden in return for Israel's consent to the establishment of several demilitarised zones (Article V). After prolonged bickering and many delays, a General Armistice Agreement was thus signed by Syria and Israel on July 20, 1949. It was signed on July 20, 1949 near the Banat Yaqub bridge on the Jordan River by Col. Fawzi Silo for the Syrians. Lt. Col. Makleff on behalf of Israel. By virtue of that agreement, Syria withdrew its forces from most of the territories it controlled west of the international border, which became demilitarised zones. It was emphasised that the armistice line was “not to be interpreted as having any relation whatsoever to ultimate territorial arrangements.” (Article V) As the Armistice lines did not follow the fighting lines in all cases, especially on the Syrian-Israeli front, the Syrian-Israeli Armistice agreement was meant to freeze the position of troops as at April 13, 1949, the date of the last cease-fire. Israel signed the armistice on condition that an area of 66.5 sq. km's captured by Syria were included in the Israeli-Syrian demilitarised zone, over which neither were to have legal sovereignty pending a final settlement. Israel rejected similar proposals for land it had captured from the proposed Arab state, to be incorporated into a DMZ. Sharp disagreement, often leading to violent measures, erupted from the outset regarding the status and disposition of these areas. Israel implemented several civilian projects in these zones without paying attention to the rights of the Arab landowners, while Syrian gunners shot at the operators of such projects, which they considered to be in violation of the GAA. Some of these clashes escalated into major flare-ups, including the engagement of artillery, armour, and air force. The UNSTO chief-of-staff commented on the Syrian policy towards Israel in the DMZ as follows: “...Syria's policy as regards Israel was to avoid incidents and situations which might involve Syria in active hostilities, for he [Syrian Chief of Staff] realised his army's weakness in the face of the Israel's superior armament, training and organisation.”
