As I wrote earlier, Biden’s ‘Sabbath’ speech claiming that there was an Israeli proposal to let Hamas win in exchange for the hostages and their bodies, was a series of lies.

It was not an Israeli offer, it was the Hamas offer to which Israel had replied. Biden stripped away the Israeli reply and just presented the Hamas offer. (It was the same stunt that Egypt had previously pulled.)

The Biden administration and the media (along with Barak Ravid, its current favorite agent of influence inside Israel) are now claiming that going into any of the details, as the Israelis are doing, is inconvenient.

Israeli officials are concerned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s statements in recents days could sabotage the “constructive ambiguity” used by negotiators to draft a proposed Israeli hostage-ceasefire deal that could be accepted by Hamas.

This isn’t coming from Israeli officials, it’s coming from the Biden administration and its catspaws.

And the negotiators are supposed to answer to Netanyahu, who heads Israel’s democratically elected government, not the other way around.

Binding agreements don’t depend on “constructive ambiguity”.

Constructive ambiguity is buying a car that may or may not work. It’s not a deal, it’s a scam.

Hamas wants to know the deal’s commitment to a ceasefire in Gaza will ultimately lead to the end of the war, but Netanyahu is publicly saying he is still committed to continuing the war until Hamas is defeated.

That’s a pretty big difference.

The ambiguous language in the proposal could allow both sides to enter the first phase of the deal, which includes a release of a group of hostages and a 42-day ceasefire, while leaving for a later point the question of whether the agreement will actually lead to the end of the war.

You’ve got to pass the deal to find out what’s in it.

Let’s see which side of the “ambiguous language” Biden came down on in his big speech.

During the six weeks of ph- — of phase one, Israel and Hamas would negotiate the necessary arrangements to get to phase two, which is a permanent end to hostol- — to hostilities.

No ambiguity there. Here’s the conclusion of Biden’s speech.

“It’s time for this war to end and for the day after to begin.”

Not ambiguous at all.

There’s an old that goes something like, “If you’re sitting at a table and you don’t know who the sucker is, you’re the sucker.”

It’s pretty obvious who the sucker is meant to be in this deal. Same sucker as in every peace deal with terrorists.