For many months, the government negotiated with Lebanon on marking the maritime border between the two countries.
The hands that finally signed the agreement were the hands of the government in Beirut, but the voice was the voice of Hizbullah, who willingly issued threats of war and willingly - and after satisfying himself and reaping profits, for now propaganda and in the future perhaps also economic - gave the agreement his blessing.
However, what should be of concern in this agreement is not necessarily its content and details, but rather the manner in which the government conducted the negotiations.
After all, for many months his details were hidden from the public in Israel, as if it were a state secret, and no one had any idea what the Lebanese claims were and what their positions were, as well as Israel's red lines.
But such negotiations cannot really be hidden.
Indeed, anyone who wanted to know exactly where things stood could refer to the Lebanese press, where it was possible to follow on a daily basis the developments in the negotiations and what Israel insisted on, or alternatively had already given up.
It must be admitted that the Lapid government is not the first to adopt a policy of concealment, in order to deceive, towards the public in Israel, withholding information from it and presenting it with finished facts.
This is how all Israeli governments have behaved in recent decades in every negotiation they conducted with the other side.
Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert each pledged to the Syrians to withdraw from the Golan Heights.
The Syrians and the American mediators knew about it, and so did the newspaper readers in Damascus.
But from the public in Israel, and by the way - also from most of the government ministers, this was hidden.
Israeli governments acted this way because they were afraid of the Israeli public, and above all because they did not trust it to show maturity and support moves that they believed would advance Israeli interests.
They hoped that when the moment came, and if an agreement was reached, the public would support it, even if they had no choice.
Such a course of conduct is inappropriate not only because it is not democratic but mainly because it causes irreparable damage to Israeli interests.
After all, the other side, unlike us, tends to clearly announce its positions, binds itself to them by considering a tall tree on which it climbs, and in the end also succeeds in convincing the American mediators and even the international community that there is no escape from accepting this position.
And opposite, Israel's voice is not heard at all and no one is clear what she wants and what her red lines are.
In this way, the Syrians managed to establish in our minds, as well as ours, their demand for an Israeli withdrawal to the Sea of Galilee, while the Israeli side did not present to the public and to the world an opposing position, regarding a red line on which Israel will not compromise (for example, the international border line).
This is how the Lebanese opening position in the negotiations became its ending point.
As mentioned, it is good to have an agreement and in any case the fate of a few square kilometers in the depths of the sea does not increase or decrease.
But it is important to understand that this is not a historical agreement heralding peace with Lebanon or that peace will prevail from now on in the northern border.
Hezbollah has a long list of demands from Israel, starting with the Sheba farm and ending with the Mesopot line, which is de facto gnawing away at - and thus Israel also admits - Lebanese sovereignty.
The conception according to which Hezbollah is deterred and afraid of a confrontation collapsed at the beginning of the year after Nasrallah began threatening war.
The border demarcation crisis taught, therefore, that in view of Lebanon's economic and political collapse, Nasrallah really has nothing to lose and is right to drag Lebanon into war.
And beyond that, many Lebanese are interested in coexistence with Israel, but this does not increase or decrease, since Hezbollah reserves the right of the last word in this matter.
Lebanon will not, therefore, be the next Arab country, but probably the last (if at all) to sign a peace agreement with us.
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