By Staff, Haaretz In an analysis piece published by ‘Israeli’ Haaretz newspaper, and under the title “Haaretz Naval Conflict with Iran Sheds Lights on a Critical ‘Israeli’ Weak Spot,” Amos Harel wrote: More than two months have passed since the severe oil spill in the Mediterranean Sea, which caused great damage to the offshore waters and the coasts of ‘Israel’ and Lebanon.

The washing ashore of lumps of tar is considered one of the major ecological disasters in ‘Israel’s’ history.

Those who purportedly bore direct guilt for the disaster were marked.

But the incident dramatized ‘Israel’s’ high level of vulnerability to ecological disasters.

Two months on, ‘Israel’ has done very little to improve its response to this danger, which could be repeated either deliberately or accidentally.

The ‘Israeli’ entity lags well behind countries that are coping with similar threats.

There is no governmental authority that exercises routine supervision and control over maritime pollution.

A good many of the powers reside in the War Ministry, through the navy, but those bodies inherently focus on salient security hazards and are not trained to deal with matters such as oil spills or arranging fishing rights.

The discovery of natural gas deposits in the occupied territories economic zones more than a decade ago rendered the whole question far more critical, both because of the value of the assets at risk and because of the potential damage liable to be caused if they are attacked.

Three governmental decisions – in 2008, 2013 and 2017 – addressed a local plan to deal with oil spills, but the plan was never implemented and did not receive the necessary resources.

Following the latest spread of pollution, in which 1,200 tons of crude oil [from a total cargo of 115,000 tons] spilled into the sea, a legislative bill was again submitted, but it looks like a copy-paste of the previous bills.

At any rate, politicians in the transition government have more pressing matters to deal with.

Responsibility for dealing with oil spills lies with the Environmental Protection Ministry.

In principle, there is across-the-board agreement that ‘Israel’ needs to quickly activate a better monitoring system, one that draws on serial satellite images of the Mediterranean, and to continually analyze data on the movement of ships and the dangers they pose.

These systems are available in the private sector.

In fact, the ‘Israeli’ military and other security bodies lease services from private companies on a permanent basis.

Yet bureaucratic hurdles have so far prevented ‘Israel’ from drawing up a contract for the implementation of systematic, permanent monitoring of the sea.

Part of the delay is apparently related to the political tensions between Likud and Kahol Lavan.

After the maritime disaster, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu approved a diversion of $13.6 million from the environmental protection budget to deal with the oil spills.

A committee of directors general was also formed.

However, according to knowledgeable sources, the crowning glory of the actions taken the past two months was the purchase of a tractor to clean the tar-strewn shore.

No improvement was registered in the routine monitoring of pollution hazards; while at the same time the possibility that someone will try to foment “ecological terror attacks” has only increased, in light of the activity attributed to ‘Israel’ and the accusations made by the government itself.

This wouldn’t be such a big story if it weren’t for the escalation in maritime activity,” a source involved in the matter told Haaretz.

“We have waited since 2008, we’ll wait a little longer.

But the fact that the attacks are now above the radar completely changes the picture.

‘Israel’ has already stated publicly that it is vulnerable.

Everything has become more urgent.” As Maya Jacobs, CEO of Zalul, an NGO dedicated to protection of ‘Israeli’ seas, streams and coasts, puts it, “Everyone with eyes in their head sees the kind of easily damageable targets we are placing in the sea.

‘Israel’ is not putting enough emphasis on protecting the maritime environment.

The maritime campaign with Iran that was revealed is further heightening the risks.

What’s needed here is a continuous, comprehensive monitoring system that will rely on regional cooperation and encompass more countries of the Mediterranean-shore region.” Jacobs also noted another emerging threat.

As called for in the ‘Abraham Accords’ with the United Arab Emirates, a memorandum of understanding was signed between Tipline [Eilat-Ashkelon Pipeline] and a UAE corporation.

It stipulates that oil will be transported from the emirates to Tipline’s fuel terminal in Eilat, from there to be channeled to Ashkelon and then continue on its way in the Mediterranean, thus saving the costs of passage through the Suez Canal.

This is a huge and potentially highly lucrative project, but it also greatly intensifies the risks to the environment in the Red Sea.

An article published by Prof.

Shaul Chorev and Dr Moshe Terdiman, from the University of Haifa’s Maritime Policy and Strategy Research Center, notes that “a solitary hitch in tankers or an oil spill could seriously endanger the coral reefs and the unique ecological system in the Gulf of Eilat.

Cases of such spills have already occurred in the past.”