Someone correct me if I'm wrong... Lapid's "agreement" essentially gave away "contested" and very valuable area to a terrorist entity (while NOT in the midst of an existential war), while the current "agreement" is a ceasfire -- a break in the fighting to give Lebanon a chance to move out that terrorist entity away from Israel and to prevent it from re-arming (something that will be monitored by several countries and can be addressed militarily by Israel if needed). It's not giving up claims to any parts of Israel, and is only meant to prevent the terrorists from firing and re-arming. According to his logic, because of the word "agreement" in both, there'd be no difference between a hypothetical "agreement" awarding Hamas with, say, some land south of Ashkelon before Oct. 7th, versus "an agreement" now to lay down their weapons and give back the hostages, so as to be allowed to run away from Gaza and never return.
Lapid is full of bovine faeces. His agreement gave Hezbollah billions of dollars and now that investment is falling on Israel and exploding.
ReplyDeleteSomeone correct me if I'm wrong... Lapid's "agreement" essentially gave away "contested" and very valuable area to a terrorist entity (while NOT in the midst of an existential war), while the current "agreement" is a ceasfire -- a break in the fighting to give Lebanon a chance to move out that terrorist entity away from Israel and to prevent it from re-arming (something that will be monitored by several countries and can be addressed militarily by Israel if needed). It's not giving up claims to any parts of Israel, and is only meant to prevent the terrorists from firing and re-arming. According to his logic, because of the word "agreement" in both, there'd be no difference between a hypothetical "agreement" awarding Hamas with, say, some land south of Ashkelon before Oct. 7th, versus "an agreement" now to lay down their weapons and give back the hostages, so as to be allowed to run away from Gaza and never return.
ReplyDelete