One of the main responsibilities of the Palestinian side under the roadmap is its security obligation. Under it Palestinians are required to end military attacks on Israelis and the Palestinian Authority to dismantle "terrorist infrastructure". The security obligation is perceived to be the counterpart to the Israeli responsibility to end settlement expansions and dismantle settlement outposts.

There are a few major problems with this obligation, however. One is that while ending settlement expansions and dismantling outposts is a well-defined obligation that can be easily measured, the security obligation on the Palestinian side is less so. Another problem with the obligation is that the continuing occupation and Israeli practices to maintain that occupation are a constant provocation for Palestinian violence against Israelis. No matter how active the PA is in confronting Palestinian violence, without a clear prospect for ending the occupation it will always be difficult to control such resistance.

In addition, the fact that the Oslo agreement only gave the PA partial authority and responsibility over Palestinian areas limited its ability to impose its control. That situation was further complicated with the Israeli re-occupation of those autonomous areas in 2002. Politically, the current situation makes it extremely awkward for the PA to undertake its security responsibilities, at least from the perspective of the Palestinian public. Palestinians believe that it is legitimate to resist the occupation in the absence of any agreement to end the occupation and certainly in the absence of even the prospect of agreement to end this occupation.

It is for this reason that the Palestinian side has been insisting that the ideal way for both sides to fulfill their obligations under the roadmap is for them to do so simultaneously. In other words, the PA should not wait until Israel dismantles its settlements in order to start fulfilling its security obligations, nor should Israel delay implementing its obligations to halt settlement expansion and dismantle outposts until the PA fulfills its security obligations.

This, unfortunately, is not the Israeli position--as witnessed by recent statements by Israeli officials, including some by the foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, who is also head of the Israeli negotiating team. Israel expects that the PA fulfill its obligations first, arguing that in the absence of security there it has no responsibility to fulfill its own obligations. But, in fact, the simultaneous fulfillment of the two sides' obligations will reinforce each other and if each side waits for the other to start it will have the opposite effect.

There has to be recognition by Israel and all interested parties, especially the United States, which has given itself the role of overseeing the implementation of the roadmap, that the PA has shown unprecedented seriousness and success in fulfilling its security obligations in an increasing number of Palestinian cities and towns. The success in enforcing law and order in Nablus in addition to the success of convincing a growing number of the members of various resistance groups and militias to give up their arms is very significant.

The way to recognize and encourage this progress is for Israel, in turn, to begin to fulfill its obligations under the roadmap by ending settlement expansion--especially in and around Jerusalem--and lifting its systematic restrictions on the movement of Palestinians and goods. Failure to do this will weaken and embarrass the Palestinian negotiators and the leadership behind them. Already, Palestinian negotiators are isolated and under constant criticism.

It is impossible for Palestinians to accept that political negotiations should proceed alongside settlement expansion. In the mid-1990s the combination of these two processes led one to kill the other. Unfortunately we are witnessing the same dynamic today. If it continues, the end result will be the same.