Obligations under the Wye Memorandum – simultaneous or sequential?

Communicated by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 15 March 1999

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
   (transferring 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.