This agreement was reached on the initiative and through the mediation of the United States Government. We were first shown a draft. We made our comments, and we later received this text, which was handed to us by US representatives and which was agreed to by Egypt. That was the US representatives’ share in drafting this agreement. We did not talk with the Egyptian representatives directly, but, as I have just said, representatives of the US Government brought us the proposed agreement, we made our comments, and we were afterwards told by them -and I have no doubt accurately so – that the matter had been brought before the Egyptian Government for final drafting, and that this text that we have here was agreed upon by both sides.
In this 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.
Moreover, we ought not to, and cannot, allow ourselves to ignore the fact that not only is this moving forward of these sites of considerable military significance and not only is this standstill provision a central provision of the agreement, but the entire agreement is a very important part of the American peace initiative, of the “talking” that comes within the compass of this initiative.
There are three things that I wish to stress in the name of the Government: that the violation is of importance; that the provision violated is of importance; and that the agreement is of importance in the context of the “talking” under the American peace initiative known by that name.
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.
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=56158
