Further Redeployments - an Israeli Responsibility
February 2000
The DOP and the Interim Agreement provided that Israel would
implement a series of three further redeployments of its forces
in the West Bank. These agreements are not specific, however, as
regards the extent of the territory to be transferred to
Palestinian jurisdiction in this process, or the location of
these areas.
Article XIII(2) of the DOP stipulates that the redeployment of
military forces is subjected to Israeli decision, and sets out a
consideration to be taken into account by Israel while exercising
its discretion.
The Interim Agreement provides only that in the FRD process,
Israeli military forces will redeploy to "specified military
locations" (Articles X.2 and XI.2.d). These locations are not
defined in the Agreement but rather are to be determined by
Israel. This is apparent from Article XI.2.f which states that
the specified military locations:
will be determined in the further redeployment phases ... and
will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations
(emphasis added)
This provision emphasizes that the specific military locations
are only to be the subject of negotiations in the context of the
permanent status negotiations. Prior to these negotiations they
are to be determined by Israel.
This understanding was confirmed by Warren Christopher, Secretary
of State of the United States, in letters sent by him to the two
sides following the signing of the Hebron Protocol, in which be
wrote of Israel's process of redeploying its forces and
"designating specified military locations". This position was
further emphasized by a statement issued by the US State
Department on January 15, 1997, which stated:
The Note for the Record, prepared by the United States at the
request of the parties, makes clear that further redeployment
phases are issues for implementation by Israel, rather than
issues for negotiation with the Palestinians.
The Letters of Assurance which Secretary Christopher intends
to provide to both parties also refer to the process of
further redeployment as an Israeli responsibility which
includes its designating specified military locations.
In the Wye River Memorandum, dated 23 October 1998, the two sides
made clear that they endorsed Secretary of State Christopher's
understanding that the further redeployments are an Israeli
responsibility, by emphasizing that the FRD obligations were to
be implemented:
[w]ith regard to the terms of the Interim Agreement and of
Secretary Christopher's letters to the two sides of January
17, 1997 relating to the further redeployment process
(Article 1.B, emphasis added)
The DOP and Interim Agreement give no indication of the extent of
the territory to be transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction in
the first two phases. However, in the Wye River Memorandum signed
on 23 October 1998, the parties did set out agreed percentages of
West Bank territory to be transferred in the various stages of
the first and second FRD phases. These percentages, however,
relate only to the extent of the territory to be transferred, and
not its location which remains an Israeli prerogative. Beyond the
specific percentages, set out in the Memorandum, no other
conditions are placed on the implementation of this Israeli
responsibility, either in the Memorandum or in the detailed Time
Line attached thereto. To the contrary, according to the Time
Line, in each stage of the FRD implementation Israeli officials
are required to "acquaint their counterparts" with the areas,
indicating that these areas have been determined by Israel and
not in coordination with the Palestinian side.
In the Sharm El Sheikh Memorandum of 4 September 1999, the two
sides revised the percentages and dates for FRD implementation.
These amendments, however, were stated to be "without derogating
from the other requirements of the prior agreements". These
requirements include, inter alia, the provision requiring 3% of
the area transferred to the status of Area B shall be designated
as Green Areas/Nature Reserves, as well as the general principle
that the location of the areas to be transferred remains an issue
to be determined by Israel.
Finally, it should be noted that the practice of the two sides to
date has been fully in conformity with the provisions of the
agreements as outlined above; the location of the areas in which
Israeli forces have redeployed, and the designation of area as
Green Areas/Nature Reserves, has been determined by Israel. No
objection to this longstanding practice has previously been
raised by the Palestinian side.
* Prepared by the Legal Division of the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs.