1. I want to address the critiques that @DavidMakovsky & @AmbDennisRoss spell out. Most are entirely legitimate & I’m happy to have the debate with friends I deeply respect, but I challenge them to come up with what a credible alternative response would be to annexation. https://twitter.com/davidmakovsky/status/1283152241973702657

2. I do have issues with the claim that I believe “Israel bears full responsibility for the conflict.“ at best it’s poor word choice (I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt). But it’s coded language that’s used to negate debate on these issues & inconsistent with my record

3. First, they criticize my proposal for giving the Palestinians recognition without strings attached. of course in an ideal world the US would ask something from the Palestinians for recognition. And if annexation does not go ahead, I’m fine with that.

4. But we aren’t in an ideal world. We are in a world in which Israel is about to potentially take a massive step that undermines the future prospects of 2 states and undercuts the basic principles of Oslo.

5. If we want to be a constructive mediator, we should certainly hold both parties to account. But when one party does something extreme & dangerous that is not the moment to turn to the other party and say “well but what about you?” Which is basically what they are arguing.

6. Second, they say it won’t work because it’s purely symbolic. Well, if that’s the case why come out so strongly against it? Symbolism matters in this conflict.

7. And the greatest danger in the aftermath of annexation is collapse of any hope on the Palestinian side, which my proposal tries to address. honestly all the options are terrible so I’m not confident it will work either.

8. This gets me to the most important point. What is their alternative? They argue for public criticism in response and “gradualism” because there is no solution today (I agree there is no solution today).

9. But their form of gradualism involves letting Israel build inside the “blocs” in exchange for renouncing claims outside the “blocs” but with no definition of the “blocs.” Even though the most contested territory is inside the blocs & in East Jerusalem. https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/toward-a-new-paradigm-for-addressing-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict

10. So in other words. The proper response to annexation is to publicly chide the Israelis, cut a deal that allows for MORE settlements in highly contested areas, and take a hard line with the Palestinians. How is that a recipe for preserving 2 states?

11. I am open to differentiating amongst settlements by the way. But their formula is not the way.

12. I have one more problem with the article and it’s a personal one that I hope @DavidMakovsky and @AmbDennisRoss will clarify. The claim that i think that “Israel bears full responsibility for the conflict.”

13. We are friends & colleagues and so I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt that this was a poorly worded phrase. But it’s important because it’s the type of language that is used to negate all of someone’s views when approaching this conflict.

14. It’s also entirely inconsistent with my track record. My approach has always been about finding creative positive solutions to the conflict that doesn’t dwell on faults and instead looks for answers.

15. My first major piece of work after government was about the lessons of the 2013-14 round of negotiations. Everyone comes in for criticism (including the US negotiating team that I was a part of) https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/189778/CNAS_Final_Status_Negotiation_web.pdf

16 Then I worked on the most compressive public proposal for a security system for the 2 state solution with some of Israel’s most experienced and respected retired security officials. https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/advancing-the-dialogue-a-security-system-for-the-two-state-solution

17. The focus was entirely on how to meet Israel’s security needs while addressing Palestinian needs for security and freedom as well. Nothing here about whose fault it was

18. And then there is the report we put out on Gaza last year which talks about a perpetual crisis that’s been fed by ALL the parties (and the US & International community) and makes recommendations for ALL of them. https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/ending-gazas-perpetual-crisis

19 And honestly would someone who doesn’t see the threats Israel faces publish something like this despite significant criticism I got from a number of my colleagues on the left? https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/countering-iran-gray-zone

20. Or spend 3 years (2009-2012) working Iran policy at the pentagon at a time when US-Israel cooperation & collaboration was incredibly close & critical to both our interests.

21. As an American Jew who was born in Israel to parents who made Aliyah & as a US foreign policy practitioner who has worked very closely with Israelis and Palestinians, it’s true that I have very high expectations of Israel. And that annexation fails to meet those expectations.

22. But blaming the Israeli government for taking a reckless unnecessary unilateral step and devising responses is not the same thing as blaming Israel for the entire conflict. And as analysts and foreign policy practitioners this is the type of language that should be avoided