1950 Armistice Agreement Line Gaza

March 16, 1954, The Israelis of a colony of Gev began to plow 130 dunums countries near the settlement and belong to the Arab population of demilitarized Nuqeib, in violation of the verbal agreement reached in Samara in 1950, that both sides had to maintain and work the country in question until the problem was resolved. The controversy over demilitarized zones caused much irritation and war, especially after Israel decided to establish settlements on its side of the Nitzana area, which the Egyptians considered military strongholds. After the Suez-Sinai War in 1956, Israel considered cancelling its GAA with Egypt, which was not recognized internationally. The positioning of the UN emergency force along the demarcation lines after 1957 introduced a new factor in relations between Egypt and Israel, replacing the application of the Egyptian-Israeli GAA. Israel`s capture of the Sinai Peninsula in June 1967 rendered the GAA ineffective, while Sinai`s return to Egypt in 1982, in accordance with the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, brought its final and legal end. 18 February: The Israeli delegation complains that, on 18 February, at 13 .m, two Egyptian armed soldiers crossed the demarcation line of M.R. 10884-10486. According to the complaint, Egyptian soldiers refused to stop when they were challenged by an Israeli patrol; two warning shots were fired; One of the Egyptian soldiers escaped, the other was killed 15 meters inside the territory of Israel On 24 February, the Israeli-Egyptian ceasefire agreement was signed in Rhodes. [1] The main points of the ceasefire agreement were: According to Avi Shlaim, in March 1949, when Iraqi forces withdrew and handed over their positions to the Jordanian Legion, Israel conducted Operation Shin-Tav-Shin, which allowed Israel to renegotiate the ceasefire line in the Wadi Ara area in the northern West Bank. , in a secret agreement built into the general ceasefire agreement. The green line was redesigned in blue ink on the south map to give the impression that a movement had been made in the green line. [15] In a speech in December 1969, U.S.

Secretary of State William P. Rogers stated that “any change to existing lines [1949 armistice] should not reflect the weight of conquest and be limited to non-essential changes necessary for mutual security. We do not support expansionism. [22] Harvard Professor Stephen M.