The Wye agreement was widespread in Israel, with 74% of Israelis supporting the agreement according to early November polls.  However, Prime Minister Netanyahu felt opposition within his Likud party and delayed a vote on cabinet approval, while asking the Clinton administration for public assurances on the implementation of wyes. Rather than join a government of national unity with opposition leader Ehud Barak, Mr. Netanyahu tried to reassure Likud hard-liners by deploying Wye`s implementation in early December for clashes between Palestinian protesters and Israeli soldiers.  The rejection of Netanyahu`s policies by the Barak Workers` Party and the Likud right resulted in a vote of no confidence against his government, which resulted in parliamentary elections in May 1999; Barak prevailed and promised to continue the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. After 19 months of deadlock, the Middle East peace process is back on track with the signing of a new agreement yesterday afternoon at the White House. If there are heroes on the way to this agreement, it is President Clinton, who has engaged with similar energy to secure agreements in both the Middle East and Northern Ireland, and the terrible King Hussein of Jordan who, at The invitation of Mr. Clinton, participated in the talks while undergoing painful chemotherapy for cancer. On 18 December 1998, the Clinton administration and the EU expressed satisfaction with the implementation of the first phase of the memorandum by both sides.
 However, Israel had only completed Phase 1 of the continued redeployment (F.R.D.), which meant that it had withdrawn 2% of the C area instead of the required 13%.   Both parties accused each other of not fulfilling their share of responsibility under the Wye-River Memorandum, and the continued implementation of the agreement remained unfinished. What should Israel do? Israel could ignore these repeated Palestinian violations and simply return more land. But this would only accelerate and deepen Palestinian non-compliance. Under these conditions, terrorism would inevitably escalate, leading to the total collapse of the Oslo peace process. On the other hand, Israel could decide that the Palestinian violations, which constitute a fundamental violation of the Oslo and Wye agreements, call on Israel to withdraw completely from its own commitments. But this is not Israel`s decision. Despite the difficulties, Oslo and Wye can continue. Both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Ariel Sharon reaffirmed Israel`s readiness to continue if the Palestinians live up to their commitments. But this implies that the international community votes for a genuine negotiation process and not for unilateralism.
It also requires support for compliance with peace agreements and not for excuses or deceptions by fundamental violations. It is what separates diplomacy, which creates peace and security from diplomacy, that leads to collapse and ultimately anarchy. The international community is experiencing a series of reversals of many agreements and treaties in regional conflicts that were once promising. In the Israeli-Palestinian case, no one can create one of the parties for the peace process to work. Yet there are two fundamental axioms of international behaviour that, if applied to each major dispute, would seriously improve the chances of peace. First, there is no substitute for a negotiated solution. Unilateralist proposals to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict through diplomatic means outside the negotiation process are in complete contradiction with the Oslo process and with the written assurances of the gentleman.