The world, especially the US, wanted Israel to withdraw to the 1949 armistice lines, as it had in 1956, so that Israel could reverse its success and return to a position of weakness. Israel refused to do this, but nonetheless, the world has never ceased to endorse Israel's defeat. To this very day, Israel's retreat is the primary issue of "discussions" and "talks," and Israel has constantly been under the deepest pressure to surrender to the arab invaders.

Devious Intentions
The world urges Israel to surrender to the arab invaders

The jarring mission

security council resolution 242 of November 22, 1967 called upon the secretary-general to appoint a special representative to proceed to the middle east and help to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement based on the provisions of resolution 242. dr. gunnar jarring, Sweden's Ambassador to the soviet union, a country which had broken off its diplomatic relations with Israel, was appointed, retaining his ambassadorial assignment to moscow. In early 1968, he arrived in the middle east and met with the leaders of Israel and of the arab states. Israel saw his mission as that of bringing the parties together for talks. The arab states refused direct or even indirect contact with Israel. The evolution of the first phase of the jarring mission is described in a report submitted to the security council by U Thant on January 4, 1971, which basically call upon Israel to withdraw, once more, to the 1949 armistice lines.

The rogers plan
(December 9, 1969)

By the end of 1969, the jarring mission had reached an impasse. The arab states would not negotiate with Israel directly or indirectly. There was heavy fighting along the Suez Canal. arab terrorists were engaged in sabotage actions against Israel from jordan and syria, assisted by the armed forces of those two countries. Prime Minister Golda Meir visited the United States in late September 1969, and met with president nixon in Washington on September 25 and 26. While no formal announcement was made, it was assumed that a good understanding had been reached. But, on December 9, secretary of state rogers, addressing an adult education conference in Washington, made a number of proposals for a middle east settlement, going into details on the future borders of Israel and other issues. An excerpt of the section dealing with the middle east, which became known as The rogers plan, follows:

...We [Americans] have friendly ties with both arabs and Israelis. To call for Israeli withdrawal as envisaged in the un resolution without achieving an agreement on peace would be partisan towards the arabs. To call on the arabs to accept peace without Israeli withdrawal would be partisan towards Israel. Therefore, our policy is to encourage the arabs to accept a permanent peace based on a binding agreement and to urge the Israelis to withdraw from occupied territory when their territorial integrity is assured as envisaged by the security council resolution...

Israel Rejects the rogers plan
(December 22, 1969)

A number of meetings of the Cabinet were devoted to the change of the American government's policy. Ambassador Yitzchak Rabin was asked to return home for consultations. At the conclusion of the Cabinet session on December 22, the following statement explained the reasons for Israel's rejection of the rogers plan:

...The Cabinet rejects these American proposals, in that they:

Prejudice the chances of establishing peace;

Disregard the essential need to determine secure and agreed borders through the signing of peace treaties by direct negotiation;

Affect Israel's sovereign rights and security in the drafting of the resolutions concerning refugees and the status of Jerusalem, and contain no actual obligation of the arab states to put a stop to the hostile activities of the sabotage and terror organizations.

If these proposals were to be carried out, Israel's security and peace would be in very grave danger. Israel will not be sacrificed by any power policy, and will reject any attempt to impose a forced solution upon it.

In the 1967 war Israel stood alone, confronting vast forces desiring its destruction. Ever since then, Israel has not ceased proposing to the arab governments the opening of negotiations for the establishment of peace. And the arab governments consistently refuse to make peace, continue with their aggression, and declare that they are making ready for a new all-out war...

The Second United States Initiative
(June 19, 1970)

In the spring and summer of 1970, the United States realized that the War of Attrition was fraught with the risk of great power confrontation. As the jarring mission was still deadlocked, the United States government decided to undertake a new initiative with the object of bringing about a cease-fire on the Israel-egypt front and resumption of the jarring talks. On June 19, 1970, the United States made its proposals to Israel, jordan, and egypt. They were also communicated to the soviet union. These proposals endorsed un resolution 242 and the efforts of the jarring mission, calling for a cease-fire agreement and Israel's withdrawal to the 1949 armisitce lines. However, it stated that "In order to facilitate ambassador jarring's task to promote agreement as set forth in resolution 242, the parties will-strictly observe (for three months at least) the cease-fire resolutions of the security council."

Israel Accepts US Cease-Fire Initiative
(July 31, 1970)

On July 31, Israel accepted the United States initiative. A day earlier, president nasser, who at first declined to accept a cease-fire unless Israel withdrew from all the territories it occupied in 1967, moderated his attitude and agreed to a ninety-day cease-fire. He also accepted the stipulated stand-still zone extending 50 kilometres to the east and west of the Suez Canal, where there would be no change in the military status quo.

Dayan On egyptian Cease-Fire Violations
(August 13, 1970)

On the night when the cease-fire between Israel and egypt came into effect (2200 hours GMT Friday, August 7, 1970), the egyptians, with soviet help, began to move SA-2 and SA-3 missiles into the standstill zone, embarked on the construction of new missile sites, and moved missile deployments closer to the Canal in flagrant violation of the cease-fire. On August 13, the Minister of Defence, Moshe Dayan, made a statement to the Knesset with regard to the cease-fire violations. Excerpt follows:

...In this [the cease-fire] text, the third paragraph covers what is called in the Hebrew version a "freeze" and in the English original a "standstill". This is a central provision of the very first importance.

On the first night of the cease-fire, and after that, the agreement was violated in its standstill provision by the bringing forward of missile sites--sites for soviet-egyptian ground-to-air missiles--on the egyptian side of the Canal, a move of very considerable military significance. It is not something marginal, not an odd burst of firing...

...When we learnt of this infringement, we turned to the United States, and use was also made of the fifth provision about reporting violations to the un apparatus. But first of all we turned to the US government and faced it with the facts, with the violation that had taken place, and we asked that the US representatives have things put back correctly the way they were, have those launching sites that were brought up after zero hour put back where they were before. That is how things stand at the moment. The matter is being discussed between us and the US government on the basis of our insistence on the return of the launching sites to their previous positions because their being brought forward was and is a violation of the agreement.

As for the Government of Israel, the matter is before it. I do not want any mistaken conclusions to be drawn from this. At this stage the Government regards the matter as being before it for consideration, but this does not mean that the matter is being considered without or instead of referring to the Americans, whom in the context of this agreement--which has come into being in the framework of the "talking" under the American peace initiative--we see as more than one-time mediators whose good offices brought the parties to agree upon a given agreement; we see them as carrying a heavier responsibility than that in this matter, and we do so mainly on the basis of what they themselves said when they came and proposed this agreement to us. They informed us that this agreement, including the standstill provision--and chiefly the standstill provision, was the suggestion of the soviets, who, as is known, have a considerable part in the deployment of ground-to-air missiles in egypt.