"For 10 years you have failed in trying to bring about this agreement," yesterday Prime Minister Yair Lapid accused the leader of the opposition, Binyamin Netanyahu. This was Lapid's response to Netanyahu's accusation that "Lapid shamefully surrendered to Nasrallah's threats."
As is the way of election days, demagoguery played a central role in the fist fight between the two personalities.
Because Netanyahu did not bring "this agreement" with Lebanon, as Lapid claimed.
The reason for this is that Netanyahu did not give the Lebanese everything they asked for, down to the last inch.
Lapid yes.
A simple map shows this.
When the crisis broke out in 2011, after the discovery of the gas deposits, the two countries submitted their economic water maps to the UN. Between the parties, a triangle opened up, in the north "line 1", as claimed by Israel. In the south, "line 23", as drawn by the Lebanese. Its size is about 550 square kilometers and talks were conducted on it intermittently for ten years.
Amos Hochstein, the American mediator.
He offered a "compromise" in the form of giving up 100% of the disputed territory in favor of Lebanon, photo: AP
Along the way, the parties mostly brought scapegoats into the negotiation rooms.
Two years ago, Lebanon claimed that the Shark Reservoir fell within its domain - a position that it did not have arms and legs for.
In response, Israel presented an even more demanding map, which undoubtedly entered Lebanese territory.
That all ended when the current round of talks began.
This time Bennett and Lapid's Israel fully responded to Beirut's original demand and agreed to give them their full desire.
Every cheese slit, up to the 23rd line, down to the last inch, will become part of Lebanon's economic waters.
And the big problem is no less, the cheese is full of holes.
Because Israel accepted the outline without a compensation formula being agreed upon for the gas that may be under the surface of the seabed.
Even if Lebanon agrees to the plan, they don't know in Israel.
It is especially unclear whether the "achievement", of marking a security line up to a distance of 5 km from the coast, is acceptable to Lebanon.
Lapid surrendered.
Not because of Nasrallah's threats but because of American pressure, photo: AFP
Netanyahu also contributed to the demagoguery by accusing Lapid of surrendering to Hezbollah.
Because Lapid did fold, but mainly in the face of American pressure.
Because the one who drew up the "compromise" outline was the mediator on behalf of Biden, Amos Hochstein.
He is the one who suggested that Israel give up virtually all of the original territory over which it claimed sovereignty.
For comparison, the two previous American mediators, Fred Hoff and David Schenker, talked about formulas of 60/40 in favor of Lebanon.
Not 90 and certainly not 100 percent submission to Lebanon.
Prime Minister Yair Lapid.
Gave up Israel's economic waters including a strategic asset, photo: Mark Israel Salem
Since the agreement is so strange and we are talking about a transitional government, the position of the legal advisor to the government - as presented by a senior political official - that the agreement can be approved secretly in the cabinet is unacceptable.
In a free country, such an agreement must be presented to the public, before the decision is made.
If there is a free discussion about the agreement in Lebanon, all the more so here.
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
