Amos Hochstein, the US envoy to broker the maritime deal between Lebanon and "Israel", said on Thursday that the agreement will ensure Israeli security and described it as a "win-win".

The envoy told Israeli Channel 12 that "Israel" got what it wanted and dismissed claims that the occupation "caved to" Hezbollah's threats.

The Times of "Israel" was of the opinion that the occupation ceded the Qana field to Lebanon in return for the Karish field, calling Hochstein's rhetoric a "downplaying" of concessions.

Read next: 'Israel' lost military strength, faces existential threat: Res. Gen.

In his talk with Israeli media, Hochstein focused on the security aspect of the deal, telling Channel 13 that though "Israel" is looking out to secure "its share of economics," it is [allegedly] really looking for "security and stability in the Mediterranean Sea. Because 'Israel’s' dependency on the Mediterranean Sea is a result of its massive success in developing so much natural gas."

As for Netanyahu's political stance on the agreement, in which he said he will not be bound by it if he managed to retake power after the upcoming elections, Hochstein told Israeli media that the former occupation PM's rhetoric is no more than political posturing in order to win over votes.

It is noteworthy that the Lebanese Resistance, Hezbollah, has been a very effective factor in bringing the Israelis to the indirect negotiations table after it announced from day one that it has the Lebanese government's back in its righteous and sovereign claims.

Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid announced on Tuesday that "Israel" has reached a historic agreement on maritime demarcation agreement mediated by the US.

"This is a historic achievement that will bolster Israel's security, bring billions into the Israeli economy and bring stability to the northern border," Lapid said in a statement.

Israeli media, soon after Lapid's statements, gave former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a platform to criticize the drafted agreement from a position of opposition. The opposition leader argued that "this is not a historical agreement, but rather a historical submission, liquidation [in the commercial sense] one that pertains specifically to Lapid."