March 15, 1999
Israeli and Palestinian Obligations under the Wye Memorandum - Simultaneous or Sequential?
1. The Wye River Memorandum sets out a series of specific obligations of the Israeli and Palestinian sides to be implemented in a phased approach in accordance with a detailed Time Line, divided into several phases.
2. Recent statements by the Palestinian side have suggested that the obligations within each phase are not to be implemented sequentially but rather simultaneously. However this was not the intention of the Time Line. To the contrary, the sequential approach adopted by the Government of Israel reflects exactly the thinking behind the Time Line attached to the Memorandum.
3. The Time Line is divided into a series of phases which are listed chronologically. Within each phase the obligations of the two sides are also listed chronologically. This is the clear intention of a "time line" and is also evident from an examination of the specific obligations. Thus, for example, in the period from week 2 to week 6, the meeting of the PCC (weeks two to four) is listed before the meeting of the PNC and other organisations (weeks four to six). The fact that the phases of further redeployment each appear at the end of the list of the obligations in each period is not coincidental; it is a clear indication that such redeployments are only to be effected upon the completion of the prior obligations in the relevant period.
4. This is not only the intention of the Memorandum; it is also the practice that has been adopted by the two sides to date: the first phase of the FRD was only implemented after the Israeli Government had confirmed that the prior commitments of that phase had been implemented.
5. The logic behind the Wye Time Line is understandable. It seeks to deal with the fact that while Israel's obligations are all irreversible (transfering territory, releasing prisoners), the Palestinian side's obligations are almost all questions of policy which can, and are, only too easily turned on and off (fighting terrorism, preventing incitement, security cooperation). Accordingly, the Wye Time Line provides that the Palestinian side is to demonstrate its commitment to its obligations in the course of each phase, prior to Israel being obligated to forfeit its valuable and finite assets. Only in this way can there be any degree of assessment as to whether there has been a genuine commitment to implementation by the Palestinian side over a period of time.
6. This logic is reflected in the wording of the Memorandum, which states clearly in Article II that:
"the Palestinian side's implementation of its responsibilities for security, security cooperation and other issues will be as detailed below during the time periods specified in the attached time line."
The use of the word "during" indicates that, unlike the Israeli commitments, which are to be implemented at the end of each phase, the Palestinian obligations must be implemented consistently throughout each phase. As the Wye Memorandum states in Article II:
"The struggle against terror and violence ... must be continuous and consistent over a long-term, in that there can be no pauses in the work against terrorists and their structure."
This point was also underscored by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in her letter to Prime Minister Netanyahu, dated October 23, 1998, in which she stated that "the Palestinian security undertakings are a critical foundation of the Memorandum".
7. In practice, were any approach other than the sequential approach advocated by Israel to be adopted, it would produce anomalous results. Israel could be required to withdraw from additional territory, before the Palestinian side had done anything to indicate its commitment to further implementation.
8. In conclusion, it should be noted that the interdependence of the Israeli and Palestinian obligations is not a new principle; the Note for the Record attached to the Protocol Concerning the Redeployment in Hebron provided for the implementation of the two sides' obligations "on the basis of reciprocity." At the current time, the Palestinian side has yet to fulfil many of its obligations under the Memorandum, but is nonetheless seeking to find a way to extract further concessions from Israel. Such an approach is inconsistent with the very basis of the Memorandum. Moreover, acceding to Palestinian demands for implementation by Israel, without insisting on full Palestinian compliance, would seriously undermine prospects for Palestinian compliance in the forthcoming phases of the Time Line and in any future agreements.