The period from August 1949 to June 1956 was initially chaotic but quickly settled into a routine of complaints on the Jordanian, Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese fronts. It was initially possible for the UN personnel to deal with complaints of violations of the "truce" at the local commander level. As time progressed there arose a culture of claim and counter claim by the participating parties and regardless of the work and intent of UNTSO the intensity of the violent incidents increased. The GAAs had been hastily prepared in anticipation of an early peace along the lines of the 1947 Partition Plan and the primary concern was an end to the bloodshed at the earliest opportunity. As a result, the armistice lines had laid out temporary boundaries without thought to existing village boundaries or water rights. The armistice agreements were of a purely military character, intended to provide a transitional stage between the truce and a final peace. They constituted, in effect, non-aggression agreements of unlimited duration, but they contained in themselves no provision for establishing normal relations between the neighbouring countries. The armistice lines did not follow the fighting lines in all cases especially the Syrian Armistice line. In the case of the Egyptian Armistice line Israel forces carried on with a push south arriving at Umm Rashrash (Eilat) in March after the Egyptian-Israel GAA of 24 February 1949. This caused friction on setting the "truce lines". The contribution toward the foundation of a peaceful existence by the Mixed Armistice Commissions (MACs) was limited by the sanctions that the MACs were able to apply (a formal condemnation by the Security Council). For approximately 18 years (from 1949 until after the 1967 war), lack of harmony within the MACs was typical of the relationship existing between the countries. With the exception of the Israeli-Lebanon MAC, strife and discord became common.