"There are parties interested in an incident in the north": a controversial statement in the Foreign Affairs and Security Committee Israel today

An unusual confrontation in the Foreign Affairs and Security Committee during the discussions on the approval of the maritime agreement with Lebanon:

MK Ram Ben Barak Mish Atid claimed today (Wednesday) that there are elements attacking the agreement who are interested in an incident in the north. MK Levin demanded that he retract it.

MK Ohana: "You will receive both disgrace and war."

In addition, MK Yariv Levin demanded to know whether Israel gave up all the gas that was in the disputed area, which it did. After the Director General of Energy explained that Lebanon is responsible for any gas assets found in its economic waters (that is, from the 23rd line north), MK Mish Atid claimed: "The territories were not ours in advance, how can we give up what is not ours?"

About two weeks ago, the Prime Minister announced that Israel had reached an agreement with Lebanon on the maritime agreement.

He firmly claimed that the draft agreement fully complies with the principles presented by Israel, both in the security and economic fields.

"This is a historic achievement that will strengthen Israel's security, bring billions into Israel's economy and ensure stability on the northern border," said the Prime Minister. 

The Netanyahu bloc expressed strong opposition to the agreement with Lebanon.

The head of the opposition Benjamin Netanyahu said that this is a "surrender agreement", MK Itamar Ben Gabir has already announced that he will petition the High Court against the agreement.

A similar proposal was put forward in Likud, but no decision has yet been made on the matter. "This is not a historic agreement but a historic surrender," the head of the opposition said in a statement to the media.

"For over a decade, the governments under my leadership did not give in to Nasrallah's threats - and we did not accept a war. Until Lapid arrived. Within three months Lapid completely surrendered to all Hezbollah's demands."

The Kohalat Forum and the Lavi organization also petitioned the High Court against the signing of the agreement, and submitted a request to issue a conditional order preventing the government from voting tomorrow on the approval of the agreement. The reason for this, according to Kohalat, is that the High Court ordered the government to respond to their petition, while the government did not respond and is trying to determine facts on the ground and to confirm the agreement even before responding and hearing the petition. Judge David Mintz ordered the government to respond to the request of the congregation by tomorrow (Wednesday) at 10 am.

Against the background of the government's intention to approve the agreement only on the government's table, the spokeswoman advised Lapid to bring the agreement to the Knesset for approval, especially because it is an election period in which the government's legitimacy is low. In addition, she claimed that it is inappropriate for a government to accept the hands of the next government.

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