Listening in. @DavidHarrisAJC is talking a lot about "renewed sovereignty" -- on July 1 -- annexation day. https://twitter.com/AJCGlobal/status/1278358246789730309

"We approach Israel advocacy independently -- we don't reflect a particular party in the US or Israel -- or reflect a particular ideology or dogma or doctrine that many other groups especially here in the US. We try to take facts as we seen them."

Accuses others -- of bias confirmation -- of selecting facts to fit an ideology. "Of those who don't want to hear the facts that challenge the airtight thinking within that orthodoxy."

" @AJCGlobal by contrast, after 72 years, understands that no one on the planet has a monopoly on how to secure peace for Israel. When I look at ideologically driven organizations, they have an arrogance that comes with it. That says, "We know how to get there."

The Jews did not return to Israel to live in permanent conflict. It's just one tiny sliver of land -- where they could establish sovereignty. So this notion of arrogance. On the right -- mistrust of Arabs -- or the arrogance of the Left that says peace is around the corner.

Peace has to be "real peace" -- it can't be a peace of paper. It can't be a Potemkin village. That is where AJC separates itself from these other organizations. What distinguishes us is a certain humility.

"We made a choice to make our lives here -- shouldn't that give us a certain humility? About how much we seek to impose our views? Even going to individual members of Congress to determine *their* views on Israel, all based on the arrogant notion that "we know better" --

((Question for @DavidHarrisAJC -- isn't convincing Members of Congress to determine their views on Israel *precisely* what the premise of advocacy is?))

'The Land is more or less what we call "Israel" today.' --- Also quite a thing to say today on Annexation Day. What is @AJCGlobal position on Israel's unilateral annexation of territory in the West Bank in contravention of international law?

Talking about the "universal moral code" of IDF. Talking about the "excruciatingly difficult decision" -- not as a matter of policy -- but unintended consequences and mistakes. Israel faces difficult moral decisions...

. @DavidHarrisAJC talking about his meeting w/ anonymous Euro Prime Minister. What is his view re: head of Yesha endorsing @Netanyahu's #annexation strategy: "Let's annex however much we can now 'as Stage 1' - as long as we continue to reject in principle the idea of Pal state."

. @DavidHarrisAJC wants to talk about 21st Century issues -- "water, cybersecurity, food security..." -- curious to know about the "20th C" issue of the international principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory through force.

"Let's not let politics get in the way. Let's see about how we can move on together."

FINALLY: mention of #annexation. @BelleYoeli says it's very complicated -- why are there such intense feelings about it?

. @DavidHarrisAJC "I"ll try to address in a nutshell. The issues arose out of the Trump peace plan. What was an essential part of the plan, which was a sense that roughly 30% of the WB ... and roughly 70% would become the land formation of a Pal state."

"The very word annexation is a toxic word. Annexation in our vocabulary is a very negative word. Russia annexed Crimea. After 1949, Jordan annexed the WB."

Annexation is a hostile word, which is why some Israelis who support this, prefer to use the extension of Israeli sovereign law. But in the end of the day, to critics, it looks like annexation. We're friends of Israel. We are independent in our thinking.

At the end of the day, it is not our decision to make. We see the costs of the extension of sovereignty. We see the costs as very high. We don't see the benefits. There may be domestic political benefits. We don't see the benefits.

We see something that will be used by the Palestinians as another excuse or pretext to avoid the peace table."

lol. @DavidHarrisAJC accuses left wing groups who endorsed the JCPOA soon after it was released of *not having read the deal.* (Guess what, David. Lots of groups that opposed the deal did not read it.)

Says @AJCGlobal took a "respectful position opposing the deal, while saying 'we hope we're wrong.'" Some Jewish orgs froze with internal conflict. AJC came out very clearly, if it's a matter of existential importance to Israel. We have an obligation to [oppose it].

That is where I seriously parted company with the dogmatists and ideologues that couldn't get out from the uniform that they wear everyday. (Implication: those who endorsed the JCPOA did so only out of ignorance / dogmatism).