A portion of Israel's recent controversial reconciliation agreement with Turkey which was not initially made public has come to light, and has given critics of the deal significantly greater room for concern.
Under the deal, apart from providing $20 million in compensation to the families of Turkish jihadists killed during an attack on IDF forces during their raid on the Mavi Marmara flotilla in 2010, Israel has approved the passage of aid from Turkey into Gaza, via Ashdod.
So far, so relatively benign - particularly considering that that particular condition meant Turkey was dropping its demand for Israel to lift the security blockade on Gaza totally.
However, according to the newly published section of the agreement, the Turkish government - led by the Islamist, pro-Hamas AKP party - is allowed to transfer large amounts of money to Gaza, via banks approved by Israel to do business in Gaza.
The revelations came as a result of a court petition by families of Israeli terror victims against a different portion of the reconciliation agreement. Bereaved families and terror victim advocates are furious over the decision to award "compensation" to the families of Islamist extremists who conducted attacks against IDF soldiers, accusing the government of effectively incentivizing terrorism.
In its response, the State released the text of the deal - which led to the latest revelation.
According to one of the sections of the agreement, "Turkey will be able to transfer money to the Gaza Strip via banks approved to work in Gaza by Israel and the Palestinian Authority, subject to Israel's security considerations."
The latter caveat is clearly intended to prevent the funds being funneled to Hamas or other terrorist groups active in Gaza - but the question many are asking is how Israel can prevent Hamas in particular from obtaining the funds via official "government agencies" in Gaza, all of which are run by Hamas.
Attorney Itamar Ben-Gvir of the Honenu legal rights group, who is representing the Otzma Yehudit nationalist group as part of the legal suit against the deal, labeled it "shameful."
"We are talking about a shameful deal," he said. "It seems that the government hid details from the public.
"If there is ever a case in which the Supreme Court should intervene (to prevent) a humiliating and shameful deal, this is it."