Local Area Commanders' Agreements
Mount Scopus Demilitarisation Agreement of 7 July 1948 the agreement was initialled by Franklyn M Begley, a UN official, Colonel Abdullah el Tell and by Colonel David Shaltiel, the Jordanian and Israeli military commanders in Jerusalem.
Mount Scopus Demilitarisation Agreement of 21 July 1948 Israeli and Jordanian local commanders with subsidiary agreement initialled by Franklyn M Begley and the local Jordanian commander but not by the Israeli commander.
In late 1951 General de Ridder negotiated a local commanders' agreement in an effort to reduce border tension. On the first day of February 1952, a new agreement went into effect and for three full months all complaints were handled by the local commanders. Incidents did occur during the period of February to May but they were considered as less serious and far fewer than before. In May 1952 the Local Commanders' Agreement fell before the constant criticism of the Israeli delegates to the MAC. They claimed it was ineffective and yet their own Local Commanders spoke highly of the arrangement. By the end of May 1952 occurrence of incidents was more frequent and they were also becoming more serious.
Further "Agreements on measures to curb infiltration" which was put in force from May 1952. The new agreement stipulated that instructions would be given to all local authorities and commanders to-strengthen measures to ensure the prevention of all illegal crossings of the demarcation line. It was also provided that firing would he reduced to a strict minimum; that it would be prohibited during the day-time on people who had crossed the demarcation line, unless they resisted arrest. Stolen property was to be returned as soon as found, without waiting for any-thing to be handed over by the other side in return; flocks found grazing on the wrong side of the demarcation line would be returned immediately subject to payment, according to fixed rates, for their keep and also for the damage they might have caused. It was, moreover, agreed that complaints would be kept at a minimum by attempting to settle minor incidents at the local, commander's level. A few days after that new agreement had come into force, the Jordanians captured an Israel driving-school vehicle which had made an apparently strange mistake in leaving the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway and crossing the demarcation line in very difficult terrain in the Latrun area. There were in the vehicle a civilian and three soldiers. The new agreement provided that members of the security forces of either Party who crossed the demarcation line "by mistake" should be returned after interrogation. The Jordanians having delayed the return of the three soldiers, Israel announced on 8 January 1953 that the new agreement to reduce and solve incidents was null and void. The agreement provided that, if it came to expiration, the old "agreement on measures to curb infiltration", signed on 13 May 1952, would automatically re-enter into force. On 8 January 1953, Israel also gave formal notice of its desire to terminate the old agreement to two weeks' time, as permitted by the text of that agreement. On 22 January 1953, the local commander's agreement for the prevention and settlement of minor incidents, particularly the crossing of the line by infiltrators or by flocks, came to an end. On that day an Israeli soldier was killed when an Israeli patrol crossed the demarcation line and exchanged fire with the. inhabitants of Falameh village.
Following the 101 (1953). Resolution of 24 November 1953 where the Security Council "took note of the fact that there is substantial evidence of crossing of the demarcation line by unauthorized persons often resulting in acts of violence and requests the Government of Jordan to continue and strengthen the measures which they are already taking to prevent such crossing." The Jordanian authorities carried out the following measures:
(a) Increase of the number of police assigned to the border area;
(b) Increase of the number of patrols;
(c) Replacement of village mukhtars and area commanders, where laxity of border control was suspected;
(d) Removal from the border area of suspected infiltrators and imposing of heavy sentences on known infiltrators;
Commander E H Hutchison USMC (Chairman of the MAC) was able to confirm and verify that Jordan had increased the number of border police and border patrols by over 30 per cent and that three village Mukhtars and thirteen area commanders had been moved from their sectors because of laxness in border control. Also that the jails at Nablus, Hebron, and Amman were “loaded” with prisoners, many of whom were being held on nothing more than suspicion of infiltration. Commander E H Hutchison USMC had seen the order that was sent out from Arab Legion Headquarters to area commanders to prevent illegal cultivation. At the same time new powers had been granted to local judges to enable them to take firmer measures against those who grazed their flocks too close to the border or cultivated beyond the UN line of demarcation. Bedouin tribes living east of the Wadi Araba in the southern part of Jordan had been warned to stay back from the frontier area. The UN observers were aware of all of Jordan's efforts to curb infiltration and that those efforts had reached the total capabilities of the country.
Read more about this topic: Jordan–Israel Mixed Armistice Commission
Famous quotes containing the words local, area and/or agreements:
“Wags try to invent new stories to tell about the legislature, and end by telling the old one about the senator who explained his unaccustomed possession of a large roll of bills by saying that someone pushed it over the transom while he slept. The expression It came over the transom, to explain any unusual good fortune, is part of local folklore.”
—For the State of Montana, U.S. public relief program (1935-1943)
“Whether we regard the Womens Liberation movement as a serious threat, a passing convulsion, or a fashionable idiocy, it is a movement that mounts an attack on practically everything that women value today and introduces the language and sentiments of political confrontation into the area of personal relationships.”
—Arianna Stassinopoulos (b. 1950)
“The difference between de jure and de facto segregation is the difference open, forthright bigotry and the shamefaced kind that works through unwritten agreements between real estate dealers, school officials, and local politicians.”
—Shirley Chisholm (b. 1924)