Agreement with Lebanon

I will reiterate his question (or rather my question), is it democratically correct not to bring an agreement to a vote in the Knesset for fear that it will not be approved by an irresponsible opposition, after all, one of the flaws in democracy is that the majority decides even if it is not right, and that is exactly the case here? Of course, the question is based on the fact that a vote in the Knesset will not result in the loss of the important agreement.

If the assumption is that the vote will not cause the agreement to fail and the assumption is that it is clearly important, then what is the discussion about? To hold a voting ceremony? The question is precisely when there will be a majority in the Knesset that opposes me and says that the agreement is not important and rejects it.
I will present here what was sent to me yesterday and what I wrote about it:

Asa Kosher:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.kipa.co.il/amp/1143446

Democracy/the State is me – Reply to Asa Kasher. Asher Cohen.
“The State is me” Louis XIV gave us one of the sayings that became a clear anti-democratic symbol. The essence of democracy is, above all, the sovereignty of the people. This sovereignty is reflected in modern democracies in the election of representatives whose purpose is to represent the people, an election that is made in a variety of ways and methods.
A true democracy is one in which elections are free and take place against a background of preserving rights related to the implementation of democracy, including freedom of expression, the right to organize, and the right to vote and be elected.
It should be said right away that in a true democracy, the sovereignty of the people through its representatives is limited. It cannot become the tyranny of the majority and the exploitation of the majority to violate the fundamental rights of the minority simply because it is a minority.
The combination of all of these leads to the existence of a free market of opinions, without which democracy cannot exist. And in the free market of opinions, perceptions of the common good of society are formed and shaped.
And here, Prof. Asa Kasher does not oppose any infringement of one of the fundamental rights without which democracy is harmed. He does not oppose one of the principles of democracy that are recognized and accepted in all democracies. He himself admits that if only we were a reformed country, it would indeed be appropriate for a debate and vote to be held in the Knesset.
But Kasher identifies in his words the common good, which should be determined democratically, with his own opinions. “In our parliament” Kasher claims, “there is an opposition that does not act in the interests of the common good”. Is the “common good” Isn't it the one that is always the subject of debate between groups, organizations and parties? According to Kasher, issues can only be brought up for discussion in parliament when “there is a patriotic opposition” but that is not the case now. Isn't “patriotism” and its content among the issues that are under debate and need to be clarified in the marketplace of opinions?
Asa Kasher's words are closely related to Prime Minister Lapid's statement that justified refraining from bringing the agreement to the Knesset because of the “wild behavior” of the opposition.
This is a clearly anti-democratic view that identifies democracy solely with certain positions and perceptions, only with a defined camp. First, the Prime Minister determines what is appropriate or inappropriate behavior. And then a professor appears whose global expertise is in ethics, who determines what patriotism is and what anti-patriotism is, what considerations of the common good are and what other considerations are, what is a substantive discussion and what is not, what is a reformed state and what is not, and then justifies the "democratic" skipping of the Knesset.
This takeover of the very concepts of democracy, patriotism, and the common good is reminiscent of the attempt to take over the terms of statehood. The principle repeats itself: one finds positive concepts that are universally agreed upon as positive, gives them an interpretation that only matches their own positions, and then determines that all the rest are not. "The state is me" from the days of Louis XIV has slipped into the concept of "democracy is me". And what will happen if the unpatriotic and the unstate-minded win the elections? Maybe we should ignore the election results?

And this is what I answered:
Apparently Asher Cohen is right. But it's not that simple. If, according to the law, the government is allowed to approve the agreement without the Knesset, then in fact the consideration is its own. It has the right to think that the opposition is irrelevant, but of course it is forbidden to use this assumption/position to skip a law. But here the law does not require coming to the Knesset, and therefore it is possible not to bring the agreement to a vote in the Knesset because of their perception of the opposition.

Assume for the sake of discussion that you are the Prime Minister and that you honestly believe that the opposition is irrelevant and corrupt. In your opinion, is that not what you would do? If you are just using the argument that they are irrelevant to avoid voting but you don't really believe it, that's a different discussion (and for that too the answer is not trivial. The assumption is that legally you are not required to bring the agreement to the Knesset).

The fundamental question should be formulated as follows: Can a government take a step that the majority of the public or most of its representatives (which is of course not the same thing) opposes. Unlike the ceremonial questions about coming to the Knesset, this is a truly difficult substantive question. In my opinion, the answer in principle is no. But what if in this situation there is data that is not exposed to the public and if in my opinion if he were exposed to it he would agree (and to be precise: not assuming that most of the public is wrong but assuming that the public does not see the full picture and if he did, he would agree), then perhaps it is permissible to do so.

Incidentally, it goes without saying that in the opposite case, Bibi would have done exactly the same thing. But here the discussion is on a principled level.