The feeling is that even on the issue of gas vis-a-vis Lebanon, Lapid is following the policy of the democratic government, even if it means an Israeli concession
The confrontation and negotiations over Israel's maritime border with Lebanon is a topic that suddenly landed on the Israeli agenda.
Usually when there is a crucial strategic issue, it takes years to brew and the public and political frameworks gradually develop attitudes towards the issue.
It also usually becomes "controversial".
On the subject of the maritime border at the launch of the Harish reservoir and other reservoirs, which are claimed to be at least partially in the Lebanese maritime territory, the system did not consciously organize itself in time.
It permeated as a national problem only in the last two years, and especially during the Lapid-Bennett government.
First it became known that the Americans, i.e.: the Biden administration - are withdrawing their support from the EASTMED gas pipeline project from Israel to Europe, a joint project between Israel, Greece and Cyprus.
After that, the mediation of a certain Amos Hochstein began, of whom no one had heard, until he began to explain to the Israelis on behalf of the Biden administration what they should do with their gas and where to export it, if at all.
Dr. Dori Gold, the outgoing chairman of the Jerusalem Center for Public and State Affairs, says: "The negotiations on the maritime border and the gas reservoirs are part of the negotiations and the confrontation with Iran."
As I recall, the last part of the short historic phone call between President Biden and interim Prime Minister Lapid was devoted to an American suggestion: You must immediately end the negotiations on the maritime border with Lebanon.
How much blackmail are the Iranians capable of using with kilograms of enriched uranium?
On the eve of Lapid's speech at the United Nations Assembly in New York, Dr. Gold said: "The issue of the maritime border and Hezbollah's threats to the Harish gas field should be the focus of Lapid's speech. He should put the issue on the international agenda. These are Iran's threats to The supply of gas to Europe. The address for conveying Israel's message is countries such as France, Great Britain and Germany, which are suffering from the disconnection of Russia's gas to Europe."
Such an Israeli message creates international support in Israel's favor in case the problem goes to military lines.
The law of the maritime border is the law of the land border of Israel.
Lapid's conduct is not separated from his wrong approach - the "closed rooms" policy - towards the Iranian nuclear deal, as well as his basic attitude to the entire gas plan of Israel.
Until a few years ago, Lapid talked about canceling the gas plan.
He got off it.
What did you object to?
To this day it is not clear.
When his minister at the Ministry of Energy Karin Elharer took office, she spoke about green energies and announced the end of granting gas exploration concessions.
Such government actions signal to the global market.
The feeling is that, as with the issue of anti-Semitism and as with the Iranian nuclear issue, Lapid is following the policy of the democratic government.
Israeli discipline in the face of American dictates is expressed even on the seam line;
The green line of '67 has been resurrected.
The wave of attacks is focused on the border crossings, and soldiers stationed there this week arrested terrorists with weapons because they were apparently afraid to shoot.
On the Lebanese issue, as Ariel Kahana revealed this week in this newspaper, the necessary parliamentary procedure cannot be bypassed when it concerns border changes.
The Minister of Defense is sure that there will be an agreement, and Hezbollah will say that it is due to him.
However, considering the nature of the attack carried out by Hezbollah against Asda Harish, the organization can expect a lukewarm Israeli response.
Israel is inclusive.
on the tip of a sample
On the night of the 1977 revolution, senior officials of the Broadcasting Authority were debating whether to shelve the results of the sample. The political implications of such a move have an echo even today
One of the interesting details in Moshe Foxman's book, "Ladies and Gentlemen, a Revolution" (published by Sela Meir) is related to Hanoch Smith's sample on the night of the elections on May 17, 1977. Television was too early for the State of Israel... (the consequences of a mistake) could have led to the resignation of the top of the television, and in internal discussions the possibility of not broadcasting the results was considered," writes Foxman-Sha'al.
It's hard to know what was better then - the resignation of the television management or the transformation itself of Begin and the Likud.
In any case, Haim Yavin is the one who came to his senses: he broadcast the results of the sample, which announced the double-digit gap between the Likud and the Alignment.
It was an unimaginable result that caused shock.
What would have happened if the television management had shelved the results of the sample?
One can guess that the leadership of the array and other factors involved in counting the votes and collecting the ballot boxes had enough time to cause delays.
After all, the results are unfathomable, they are unbelievable.
It is enough that the polling stations were "old" for another 48 hours in different places.
It was not possible to dramatically change the numbers, but in the reality of those days it was possible to create an electoral plot.
The formation would not have emerged victorious, but Menachem Begin would not have been able to form a government.
Because the very publication of the sample on election night largely saved democracy in Israel.
The affair comes to mind because according to all signs, Benny Gantz, Gideon Sa'ar and Yair Lapid, with the backing of the "democracy" officials, are planning a constitutional coup after the elections.
There is only one way to prevent the ultra-smelling exercise that Prof. Avi Barali warns about again and again, and that is to bring about the victory of the right at the ballot box.
61 or 60 mandates, and certainly 65 seats in the Knesset for the net right, can stop the conspiracy train.
Anyone who meets Gantz or Sa'ar, but especially Gantz, gets the impression that he is personally and mentally hurt by Benjamin Netanyahu.
He radiates fear of him.
Netanyahu did not keep his promises and commitments to him.
It is a bit petty, not to mention childish, that a person who proclaims "Israel first" is mentally shaken by the fact that a signed commitment to transfer the prime ministership to him has not materialized.
A signed commitment does not equal a victory at the ballot box.
Furthermore, Netanyahu fulfilled his basic commitment to the people of Israel: Israel is now enjoying the fruits of his policy in the gas plan and the Abraham Accords.
Everything that happens in Israel these days is fueled by these projects that are registered in his name.
The vaccination campaign is also ultimately the main reason why the epidemic is almost behind us.
So Netanyahu delayed the train, as Gantz says?
entered the black book
The negative criticism of Assaf Inbari's book by veterans of the labor movement proves his role in shattering the romantic thesis they cultivated for themselves
Some veterans of the labor movement spoke out against Assaf Inbari's book, "The Red Book" (Yediot Books), in a way that leaves no doubt.
They don't like him, to say the least.
The series of articles published by Prof. Dan Miron in "Haaretz" about the book reflects the atmosphere on the left.
One could at first get the impression that Anbari was arranging for the veterans of the labor movement and the left to make a romantic reconciliation with the past that was seemingly negated.
But it seems not.
If a literary researcher like Miron climbs the book with a 50-ton truck at 200 km/h to determine in the end that the book is bad, this can only strengthen the feeling that the book is good, even though there is legitimate criticism towards it.
Miron turned Inbari's book into an event.
It's just that Anbari apparently deviated sharply from the party line.
This is probably the first exposure in a resounding explosion of the Stalinism of the prophets of revolutionary socialism in Israel.
Quite a lot has been written about this, but always in the understatement and by researchers on behalf of the members of the movement.
Contrary to Miron's claim that the materials in the book are not historically accurate, I can testify from years of study, and based on the testimony of an academic, a researcher of the Stalinist era in Israel, that 95 percent of Inbari's materials are correct.
The quotes are there, the events happened.
Some will say that in historical studies, some of which were published as books, there is more imagination and discussion than in Anbari's book.
The line between the public happenings in which Meir Yaari, Moshe Sena and Yitzhak Tebenkin star and internal happenings for which there is no documentation is quite clear.
It is possible that in the matter of Anda Yaari, he banished Inbari to districts that no kibbutz member that I know has heard of.
The Stalinism that Inbari reports on has a large part in the historical collapse experienced by the left of the labor movement in Israel.
The characters were complex, it was nice to get into the back seat of the giant Chevy or Yaari's Dodge with boots full of mud.
There is documentation that really suspects Moshe Senna of being a Soviet agent, but this does not contradict his authentic leadership during the struggle against the British, as well as the tense wait in the Palestinian Authority for the redemption of the Middle East by "Soviet Russia", and the liberation of the Land of Israel from the hands of the Zionist sect. As they once said In the kibbutzim? "Shhh... we don't talk about it."
The conundrum
I did not admire his rigidity, but rather the individualist he was, who, despite belonging to the guard of the founders of the settlement, remained a separate personality
A few months ago I spoke with Eliakim Atzani for the last time.
Actually, I wanted to talk to one of his sons.
It was a spontaneous reaction to some passages I read in Ehud Shaprincek's book "A man of integrity in his eyes".
Shprintsek quotes extensively from a report by the "Volunteers' Row", and it was amazing to see the ability of Eliakim Atzani and his friends to analyze in the 1950s the structural corruption and its causes in Mapai's Israel.
"Come talk to my father, tell him this," said the son and passed the phone to the stubborn Alikim.
In the twilight of his life, his activity in the 1950s, when he himself came from Mapai, is what arouses admiration.
I did not admire his uncompromising ideological rigidity but the phenomenon of the man in himself, the individualist.
I dedicated an item to him in June 2020 in the midst of the Trump agreement, which evolved into the Abraham agreements, which today everyone is trying to appropriate for themselves.
To me, at the time, he appeared to be a lone man who influenced the core of the settlers in their struggle to thwart the Trump plan, which in its most important phase included the application of sovereignty over large areas of the Yosh and the Valley. , which fascinates me to see how in these days, days of brainwashing and mob culture and a crowd rushing according to activation words and dog whistles, a single person can come and with the power of his personality shake the tree.
Brick was an unsung hero until he was about 70, the stubborn Elikim was a little different.
Despite being associated with the guard of the founding fathers of the new settlement in Yosh, he remained at least in his image as a separate personality. My impression at the time, two years and a few months ago, was that without his reasoned stance against the plan - which to me at least seemed like a dream come true - the campaign led by a section of the right against Netanyahu and his plan would not rise.
The stubborn Elikim used to be pessimistic and maybe even see blackness;
At least that's how he came out in an interview with Nahum Barnea in a headline in the mid-1980s.
The comparison with Brik in his individualism belongs to the concepts of the present.
As far as I am concerned, he belongs to that small group of unique independent personalities that characterized the 1950s, including Uri Avneri who collaborated with the "Volunteer Line" in their campaign against the police chiefs, including Amos Ben-Gurion, the son of the Prime Minister, Eliezer Livna, who Called the first neo-conservative in Israel, and to some extent even Yeshayu Leibovitz who was involved in the "volunteer line".
In modern public memory he always fought against the Likud.
For me, he was less understood and deciphered than Moshe Shamir, for example.
Shamir, Hatsani and their friends have been fighting Likud since the days of Begin and the peace agreement with Egypt.
He mercilessly attacked Yitzhak Shamir and even voted no confidence against him.
He always spoke in praise of Yigal Alon, but when someone wrote or led a movement similar to the Alon plan, it was considered "left" by him.
The few times I talked to him, I could feel something innocent about his personality.
This must have been a source of constant conflict with politicians.
were we wrong
We will fix it!
If you found an error in the article, we would appreciate it if you shared it with us
/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/prisa/2MPOQCRTTCJVHEV6VONEC6SDGY.jpg)
