The objective of any peace proposal for Israelis and Palestinians should be to resolve the conflict in a manner that can be accepted by both sides. Unfortunately, the Trump plan is not actually designed to do so. Rather, it serves as an annexation roadmap, whereby Israel receives U.S. support to apply sovereignty immediately to all settlements in the West Bank, pledges to freeze construction in areas designated for a future Palestinian state (despite the fact that there are no settlements in those areas currently), and is authorized to annex the entirety of the territory in four years if the Palestinians do not acquiesce to this scheme. The plan is an Orwellian exercise in doublespeak in which one side gets to talk about peace and two states while actually carrying out a plan that will ultimately end with a single state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

Not only does the deal discard long-held assumptions about how the conflict will be resolved, it was constructed with only the input of one party, Israel, making it a fait accompli that the Palestinians would not consider it. The question now is not whether this deal will be the basis for an agreement between the two sides but how Israelis and Palestinians will move forward despite the plan.

While it is understandable that many Israelis support extending sovereignty to Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, that cannot be the only variable in assessing the Trump plan. It is critical that, in the wake of the deal’s release, Israel not pursue any unilateral annexation schemes, notwithstanding the green light that has been issued by the White House. This is particularly important given the timing of the plan’s release, just weeks before the next Israeli election.

As we have consistently maintained, unilateral annexation will be the first step toward making Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state less assured, will heighten the risks of Israel having to take over the entire West Bank, and will dangerously erode Israel’s security. We urge Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israeli political leaders not to use the Trump plan or the Palestinian rejection of it as a pretext for a dangerous and ultimately unsustainable annexation, something that will be divisive in Israel, in Washington, and in the American Jewish community.

Irrespective of the desires of the far right or the far left, the only sustainable solution is a viable two-state outcome. While Trump paid lip service to a two-state solution, the plan does not promote any recognizable two-state vision. Although the president rhetorically acknowledged the necessity of Palestinian independence and self-determination, a viable and territorially contiguous Palestinian state, and a Palestinian capital in Jerusalem, the details do not actually contain any of those critical elements.

The Trump plan can only serve as a useful development in the long-running history of this conflict if it spurs the beginning of a process in which both sides move forward with temporary interim measures to improve the situation on the ground and pave the way for a sustainable two-state outcome in the future. We are under no illusions that the formula that many may now assume is set in stone will necessarily be the precise agreement that Israelis and Palestinians ultimately reach. But the Trump plan is not a realistic effort to bring a permanent status agreement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and it should not be viewed as such. We continue to maintain that no agreement can be imposed upon the two sides and that the only way to achieve a sustainable resolution is through direct negotiations between the parties. We hope that Israelis and Palestinians, with the help of the U.S., can take steps toward creating a more favorable political environment to enable those negotiations to take place one day.