The landmark deal centers on gas supplies from the Leviathan gas field to Egypt through 2040, valued at $35 billion. Until now, Prime Minister Netanyahu and Energy Minister Eli Cohen, whose signatures are essential for ratifying the agreement, have delayed its ratification to resolve related complications. According to sources, the chances of the deal being signed are now growing.

On the political-security front, Israel has demanded that Egypt cease violations of the peace treaty, primarily the introduction of military forces into Sinai. Additionally, Egypt has constructed tunnels in the peninsula and extended airfield runways. According to information received by Israel Hayom, there is no Egyptian commitment to roll back forces west of the Suez Canal or to refrain from future violations.

Sources say there is a principled American statement that it guarantees the peace agreement, but no concrete Egyptian steps will accompany the implementation of the gas deal. This difficult problem will be resolved over time through diplomatic means, they say. They note that Egypt's dependence on gas supplies from Israel will position Israel in a much stronger position to make demands of Cairo.

The United States has pressed Israel heavily to advance the agreement, primarily because of Chevron's stake in the Leviathan partnership. Netanyahu and Cohen have resisted the pressure for an extended period, but now the agreement appears to be moving toward signing. One possibility is a meeting between Netanyahu and Egyptian President el-Sisi as part of the concessions for Israeli flexibility. However, there is no certainty that such a meeting will take place, nor is it clear whether it would occur in the United States as a trilateral summit with Trump or bilaterally in the region.

The post Chance of Israel-Egypt $35B gas deal advances appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

An offshore drilling rig arrived at its destination in the Mediterranean Sea off Lebanon's coast and will start operations in the coming weeks to search for gas, cabinet ministers said Wednesday.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

The rig is expected to begin drilling this month in Lebanese waters near the border with Israel after the two countries reached a deal last year on their maritime border. Lebanon and Israel have formally been at war since Israel's creation in 1948.

Video: Drilling rig arrives in Lebanon's block 9 to begin exploration / Credit: Reuters

Cash-strapped Lebanon hopes that future gas discoveries will help the small Mideast nation pull itself out of the worst economic and financial crisis in its modern history.

Caretaker Minister of Transport Ali Hamie wrote on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, that the rig arrived Wednesday morning at the location where it is scheduled to begin work. The rig faces the southern port city of Tyre.

"We hope that Lebanon will become an oil state," Lebanon's Energy Minister Walid Fayyad told reporters in Beirut, adding that the results of the drilling are expected in two or three months.

TotalEnergies said in a statement that the rig, Transocean Barents, is now at around 120 kilometers (75 miles) off the coast of Beirut, and the first helicopter that will transport teams to and from the rig is at Beirut's Rafik Hariri International Airport.

"The arrival of the equipment marks an important step in the preparation of the drilling of the exploration well" this month, TotalEnergies said.
In 2017, Lebanon approved licenses for an international consortium including France's TotalEnergies, Italy's ENI, and Russia's Novatek to move forward with offshore oil and gas development for two of 10 blocks in the Mediterranean. The borders of one of the two blocks were disputed by neighboring Israel until the maritime border deal was reached last year.

In January, Lebanon, ENI, TotalEnergies, and state-owned oil and gas company Qatar Energy signed an agreement in which the Qatari firm replaced Novatek. Under the deal, Qatar Energy will take Novatek's 20% stake in addition to 5% each from ENI and TotalEnergies, leaving the Arab company with a total stake of 30%. Total and ENI will each have 35% stakes.

Under the US-mediated deal between Lebanon and Israel that was signed in October, the disputed waters would be divided along a line straddling the "Qana" natural gas field in the Mediterranean. Gas production would be based on the Lebanese side, but Israel would be compensated for gas extracted from its side of the line under a separately signed deal between TotalEnergies and Israel.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Year after Israel-Lebanon maritime border deal, offshore drilling rig arrives appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Natural gas from undersea deposits in the eastern Mediterranean can help replace Russia's diminished supply of the fossil fuel to Europe as the continent also looks to make a quick transition to renewable energy, the European Union's energy commissioner said Friday.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Commissioner Kadri Simson told the East Mediterranean Gas Forum conference in the Cypriot capital, Nicosia, that the region can play an increasingly important role as a short- to medium-term supplier of gas.

She pointed to a June deal for Israel to send more gas to EU countries through Egypt, which has facilities to liquefy it for export by sea.

The EU has already been successful in recent months in weaning itself off Russian gas, replacing 43 billion cubic meters (1.5 trillion cubic feet) of Russian gas by end of August with 45 billion cubic meters (1.56 trillion cubic feet) of liquefied natural gas and pipeline supplies.

But the commissioner said the only lasting solution to the EU's conundrum amid the energy crunch brought on by Russia's invasion of Ukraine is a speedy transition to renewables.

"Our reliable and trusted energy partners in the Eastern Mediterranean and beyond will be relevant to help Europe to replace every last molecule of Russian gas to achieve a more resilient power system and a true Energy Union," Simson said.

Simson said the Mediterranean region has a high potential to generate renewable hydrogen and that the EU has accelerated efforts to add 22 million tons of hydrogen to its energy mix by 2030.

She said negotiations with Cairo on hydrogen generation are being finalized ahead of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Egypt next month.

Hydrogen can be generated by using renewable electricity to extract it from water.

Simson said the EU would prefer not to put a price cap on gas in order to lower burgeoning energy prices for European consumers, "but rather negotiate with our reliable partners acceptable solutions for both sides."

Cyprus President Nicos Anastasiades also hailed the start of work to build a 2,000-megawatt undersea electricity cable that will link the power grids of Israel, Cyprus and Greece.

The "EuroAsia Interconnector" is touted as the world's longest and deepest subsea electricity cable, at 1,208 km (750 miles) and 3,000 m (1.9 miles) respectively.

The cable will cost roughly 1.6 billion euros ($1.56 billion) with the EU providing a little under half of that in funding.

Anastasiades said Cyprus can contribute excess renewable energy through the cable ranging from 120 Gigawatt hours at the end of 2027 to 1,000 in 2030 and over 1,800 in 2033.

The East Mediterranean Gas Forum was established three years ago by Greece, Egypt, Italy, Israel, Cyprus, the Palestinian Authority and Jordan as a vehicle to promote energy cooperation.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post EU official: East Med gas can wean bloc off Russian energy appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The dispute between Lebanon and Israel over the line demarcating each country's economic waters has been going on for 11 years. In 2011, both submitted to the United Nations their respective views of where the border should run. For Lebanon, this was the second such proposal, having submitted the first draft some two years earlier when it finalized a separate border with Cyprus.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Israel's proposal effectively adopted the line proposed by Lebanon in its deal with Cyprus and incorporated the Lebanese line (Line 1) into its own proposal to the UN. Thus, Israel effectively chose its northern border according to the first proposal Lebanon had submitted. That's why Jerusalem was surprised when, several months later, Lebanon submitted its second proposal to the UN. It included a new line, that runs south of the line from its first proposal. It ultimately became known as Line 23.

Both lines originate from the same overland point: the westernmost point of the land border between Israel and Lebanon in Naqoura. But the more Line 23 continued seaward, its distances from Line 1 increased, resulting in a triangle gap with a surface area of 332 square miles. This is now the heart of the dispute between the countries.

Underwater surveys conducted since have shown that this triangle of contention has potential gas known as the Qana Prospect. Most of the reservoir lies, according to all assessments, on the Lebanese side of the northern lines. In light of this low likelihood of extracting any economic value from that reservoir, experts advised the Israeli decision-makers to show flexibility toward Lebanon if the talks materialize.

Some 9 years passed, and Israel – despite a heated debate – developed a marvelous gas industry (kudos to former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his energy minister, Yuval Steinitz). Lebanon, on the other hand, went in the complete opposite direction. Its social disintegration only intensified, and its gas exploration efforts never took off.

In the years since mediation efforts were launched in the hopes of resolving this dispute and in the process also creating a new stable source of energy that would boost their economy. But the puppet Lebanese governments all said no, until 2020, toward the end of President Donald Trump's term in office, as well as months before Netanyahu was to be ousted as well. The Lebanese shift was prompted by the fact that the country was teetering on collapse.

The long road toward a deal

Just as Netanyahu and Trump were about to leave office, Lebanon started drafting new proposals. But it turned out that Lebanon was not willing to compromise and even replicated its trickery from a decade earlier – proposing another line that goes even further south, Line 29. This line would incorporate another 580 square miles, including the point where the Israeli gas drilling barge for the Karish reservoir would eventually dock

Israel decided to respond in kind. Steinitz instructed the negotiating team to draw a new proposed line that goes even north of Line 1. The talks continued but did not go anywhere. According to one source, "at no point could anyone entertain the thought that the entire area in dispute would be conceded. There was a willingness to give 60% to Lebanon while keeping 40%, but nothing beyond that. We had a vested interest in Lebanon having a stable energy source and that the country does not disintegrate."

Q: Why would Israel have such an interest? Hezbollah controls the country and may even fill its coffers from the gas revenues. 

"I don't know if Hezbollah is going to earn anything, but despite the disadvantages, Israel would be best served by having the Lebanese government – however weak – continue to function rather than have the country face total collapse.

The former US ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, also criticized the reported Israeli concessions. "We spent years trying to broker a deal between Israel and Lebanon on the disputed maritime gas fields. Got very close with proposed splits of 55-60% for Lebanon and 45-40% for Israel. No one then imagined 100% to Lebanon and 0% to Israel. Would love to understand how we got here," he tweeted.

An Israeli source confirmed that there was a principled stand in the talks [during Netanyahu's term] that Israel would not concede 100% of the disputed area.

"Giving up everything would have served as a dangerous precedent for other maritime border issues, such as the Israeli-Cypriot disagreements over control of the Aphrodite-Yishai field and the future of the gas in the Gaza Marine off the coast of Ashkelon," the source said. "Giving Lebanon everything sends a very negative signal to our other neighbors. They could now come with demands for total Israeli capitulation so that they get what Lebanon got."

Apart from what appears to be a total capitulation on the Israeli side, it may have been made without securing anything in return, although in recent days the Lebanese have claimed that Israel would get a share of the revenue if gas if found in the Lebanese gas field (the Qana Prospect) through the French drilling company. It is also unclear if Israel will get what it wanted in terms of the security arrangements and the actual signing of the deal and international recognition of the border. As of early October, it was not entirely clear what Lebanon would be giving Israel in return for its concessions.

There are also legal pitfalls. Justice Minister Gideon Sa'ar has successfully stifled Lapid's effort to bypass the Knesset and have the deal secretly approved in the Diplomatic-Security Cabinet. Thus, the deal will undergo Knesset scrutiny (but not necessarily a vote). Likewise, the High Court of Justice heard arguments against the deal's rushed approval process and instructed the state to explain its legal procedure for ratifying the deal and why it should not merit a national referendum (under Israeli law handing over sovereign territory automatically triggers a plebiscite).

With these obstacles, it is far from certain that Lapid can have the deal approved in Israel before the Nov.1 election. One should also ask why the US mediators had the deal finalized in this sensitive period just before the vote. The Trump White House put on hold its "Peace to Prosperity" plan on regional peace for about a year in 2019-2020 because it wanted to avoid the perception that it was meddling in Israel's political democratic process. Shouldn't have Biden done the same?

Whether or not the Israelis and Lebanese governments ink a deal, the real problem lies somewhere else: Hezbollah. The organization has already warned that it could attack the Israeli (Karish) gas field if gas get extracted before a suitable deal is reached (as of October 10, it was still unclear what Hezbollah's official stance on the newly announced deal between the sides). Lapid and Defense Minister Benny Gantz have warned that they would not be beholden to Hezbollah and that the extraction will take place as soon as is technically possible.

The way Lapid has conducted himself on this issue is problematic any way you look at it: If a deal becomes official, this would send a message that Hezbollah managed to spook Israel into giving up all of its original demands; if no deal is reached and no extraction takes place in Karish, this would embarrass Lapid as having paid for a meal that ultimately left him hungry; if after all this,  hostilities break between the sides, Churchill's adage will come true: "The government had to choose between war and shame. They chose shame. They will get war too."

What's abundantly clear is that in terms of handling the Lebanese issues – as well as relations with the EU – Lapid has taken vastly different views from Netanyahu. It is an actual difference that anyone can compare, not just spin and slogans.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post A deal with unanswered questions, uncertain approval appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The negotiations between Israel and Lebanon over the economic waters of each country have reached a dangerous phase where both sides are trying to do some arm-twisting. 

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

The recent snag in the talks centers on the caveats Lebanon has over the most-recent draft proposed by the US mediator Amos Hochstein. Israel has flat-out rejected the proposed Lebanese changes, saying they run against its economic and security interests. The Israeli statement to that effect did not mention the word "political," although it is certain that politics played a role in Prime Minister Yair Lapid's response. In recent days he has been hammered for supposedly surrendering to Lebanese demands to secure a deal. 

On the other hand, it's hard to see why Lebanon has taken this new posture. Yes, submitting reservations to a text is part of any negotiation, including last-minute revisions. But this time it appears that Lebanon tried to jump the shark. Only several days ago Prime Minister Najib Mikati said that the agreement has paramount importance because it will prevent a certain war. If that's his view, he should explain why his government has not embraced this deal and instead opted for an "all or nothing" approach. 

The US and various other actors are likely to work overtime to salvage the deal in the coming days. There are two reasons for this effort: first, the ongoing political turbulence in both Israel – which holds its fifth early election in 3 years this November, and Lebanon – which has to decide on a new president in the coming weeks; second, the security concerns over Hezbollah potentially making a move should no deal be reached. 

Defense Minister Benny Gantz instructed the IDF on Thursday to increase its operational readiness on both defensive and offensive aspects pertaining to the northern border. That statement is more than just about preparing for an escalation, it is also meant to send a message of deterrence to Hezbollah and Lebanon, making it clear that Israel will not shy away from confrontation should it be forced to. It is safe to assume Nasrallah will try to respond soon, perhaps even by testing Israeli nerves in various ways, be it with words or by sending drones. 

The latest developments could all create a negative dynamic of their own. Although both sides maintain a balance of terror and neither seeks war, the reality in which both Lebanon and Israel play a game of chicken is very dangerous. The consequences could ripple far beyond the gas fields in the Mediterranean Sea. 

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Game of chicken with Lebanon could have far-reaching consequences appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The Israeli decision to all but endorse a US plan to redraw the maritime border between Lebanon and Israel near the disputed gas fields of Karish and Qana has drawn heavy criticism from the Israeli Right, as well as from its allies in the US. 

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Former US Ambassador to Israel under Donald Trump lamented Monday that this was a squandered opportunity that put to waste years of hard work. 

"We spent years trying to broker a deal between Israel and Lebanon on the disputed maritime gas fields. Got very close with proposed splits of 55-60% for Lebanon and 45-40% for Israel. No one then imagined 100% to Lebanon and 0% to Israel. Would love to understand how we got here," Friedman tweeted. 

Republican Senator Ted Cruz also voiced his concern over the US plan, alleging that White House had Israel capitulate to Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah

"I am deeply troubled that Biden officials pressured our Israeli allies to hand over their territory to the Iran-controlled terrorist group Hezbollah. Another topic for the next Republican Congress to investigate," he tweeted.

The emerging deal, which still needs official signature and approval by Israeli and Lebanese authorities, would have Israel concede some of the economic waters it currently controls, in exchange for royalties stemming from potential gas discoveries north of the border. Hezbollah has repeatedly warned it might strike Israeli facilities in the area if the border dispute is not resolved, although it is unclear if the terrorist group will accept the new deal. 

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Former Trump official says gas deal gives '100% to Lebanon and 0% to Israel' appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Israel was behind a cyberattack on Iran's nationwide fuel distribution system in late October that paralyzed the Islamic republic's 4,300 gas stations, two US defense officials speaking on condition of anonymity told the New York Times over the weekend.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

The attack came on the heels of previous cyberattacks in recent months, which shut down vital services and infrastructure in Iran – from disruptions to traffic lights and train services to water and electric supplies.

No one assumed responsibility for disabling the gas stations or for the previous attacks in Iran. In Tehran, too, officials were careful not to point a finger at the "usual suspects," although Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi said that a country with cyber-capabilities wanted to "make people angry by creating disorder and disruption." The foreign and Israeli press had already attributed the cyberattacks to Israel, saying their objective was to apply pressure on the Iranian regime and stall its nuclear progress.

In response to the alleged Israeli attack, the Iran-affiliated hacker group "BlackShadow" hacked the servers of Israeli internet company Cyberserve. The hackers shuttered the company's servers and threatened to leak data pertaining to hundreds of thousands of users.

Cyberserve is a web hosting company that provides servers and data storage for companies such as Kan public broadcaster, the Israel Lottery, Birthright, the Dan and Kavim public transportation companies, the Children's Museum in Holon, LGBTQ dating app "Atraf," tour booking company Pegasus, the Israeli Children's Museum, and dozens of other sites.

Israel also accused Iran of carrying out a cyberattack in early April on a minor water facility that sought to poison the water supply delivered to hundreds of thousands of homes in the greater Tel Aviv area.

Meanwhile, to get pumps back online, the NY Times reported, Iran's Oil Ministry had to send technicians to every gas station in the country. Once the pumps were reset, most stations could still sell only unsubsidized fuel, which is twice the price of subsidized fuel.

It took nearly two weeks to restore the subsidy network, which allots each vehicle 60 liters (about 16 gallons) a month at half price.

The alleged Israeli hack, however, may have been more serious than an inconvenience to motorists, the NY Times report speculated.

A senior manager in the Oil Ministry and an oil dealer with knowledge of the investigation, who spoke to the NYT on the condition of anonymity "to avoid repercussions" said that officials were alarmed that the hackers had also seized control of the ministry's fuel storage tanks and may have gained access to data on international oil sales – a state secret that could expose how Iran evades international sanctions.

According to the NYT, because the oil ministry's computer servers contain such sensitive data, the system operates unconnected to the internet, leading to suspicions among Iranian officials that Israel may have had inside help.

Three senior Israeli officials, who asked not to be identified in order to discuss secret cyber issues, told the NY Times that Black Shadow was either part of the Iranian government or freelance hackers working for the government.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post US officials allege Israel behind cyberattack on Iranian gas stations appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

An explosion was reported Wednesday on a central gas pipeline in southwestern Iran.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

The Tasnim news agency reported that tremors from the blast were felt throughout the surrounding area and said that the explosion had occurred because the infrastructure was old.

Video: Social media

"This accident did not lead to any casualties," a local official from the oil-rich province of Khuzestan told state media, adding that the fire had been put out.

However, the Saudi news outlet Al Arabyia, which operates form the United Arab Emirates, quoted local officials saying they suspected that the explosion had been set off deliberately.

Pictures posted on social media showed flames at the site of the blast.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Explosion reported at gas pipeline in Iran appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The US mediator for indirect talks on border demarcation between Lebanon and Israel said on Thursday that the negotiations he was hoping to revive should be concluded in a short period if they were to succeed.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Amos Hochstein, speaking to Al Hadath TV during a visit to Beirut, said holding the indirect talks last year between the two sides in the presence of the United States and the United Nations was an important milestone but that it remained to be seen whether the right time to resume the talks was now.

"Perhaps there should be some shuttle diplomacy first, in order to assess the positions of the parties to identify where there is room for negotiation and then ultimately, to go back to Naqoura and complete the negotiations," he said.

Long-time foes Lebanon and Israel started negotiations through a US mediator in Oct. 2020 at the UN peacekeeper's base in Lebanon's Naqoura.

The maritime border dispute has held up exploration in the potentially gas-rich area but talks have since stalled.

In Thursday's interview, Hochstein said he hoped the negotiation would not take too much time.

"I think that in these kinds of efforts what we've learned is that if you take a lot of time, it doesn't happen," he said.

"So we need to be focused, and we need to move quickly."

Israel already pumps gas from huge offshore fields.

Lebanon, which has yet to find commercial gas reserves in its own waters, is desperate for cash from foreign donors amidst a deepening economic meltdown.

Hochstein said resolving the border issue would help alleviate Lebanon's power shortage by allowing it to develop its offshore gas resources.

Asked about a deal to export Egyptian gas through a pipeline going through Jordan and Syria to Lebanon, Hochstein said the United States had been working to make that happen and US sanctions against Syria would not have to be waived to make the deal go through as they likely don't apply in this case.

"We have determined that it is not – this kind of a transaction could be, likely is not, under – covered by the sanctions. And therefore we've informed the government here, and we've informed the government in Egypt that it can move ahead," Hochstein said.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post US mediator: Lebanon-Israel maritime talks must be quick to succeed appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

A coalition of more than 20 environmental and climate groups launched a campaign Monday calling for a ban on fossil fuel advertising and sponsorship across the European Union, similar to bans on tobacco advertising.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

More than 80 Greenpeace activists blocked the entrance to Shell's oil refinery in the Dutch port of Rotterdam to draw attention to the launch of the European Citizens' Initiative calling for the advertising ban.

The action comes less than a month before the start of the United Nations climate summit, COP26, in Glasgow. The 12-day summit aims to secure more ambitious commitments to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius, with a goal of keeping it to 1.5 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels.

Activists used floating cubes emblazoned with fossil fuel-linked advertisements to block the entrance, along with the protest ship Beluga II, with the words "Ban Fossil Fuel Advertising" strung between its two masts. Activists also climbed a 15-meter (yard) oil tank and attached advertisement posters next to Shell's logo.

"I grew up reading signs about how cigarettes kill you, but never saw similar warnings in petrol stations or fuel tanks. It's frightening that my favorite sports and museums are sponsored by airlines and car companies," Chaja Merk, an activist on board the Greenpeace ship, said in a statement released by the group. "Fossil fuel adverts belong in a museum – not sponsoring them."

Shell said the company is investing billions of dollars in "lower-carbon energy. To help alter the mix of energy Shell sells, we need to grow these new businesses rapidly. That means letting our customers know through advertising or social media what lower-carbon solutions we offer now or are developing, so they can switch when the time is right for them."

Police moved in to break up the demonstration, boarding the Beluga II and detaining activists. More were detained at the oil tank. In total, 22 activists were arrested and a further 32 issued with fines, police said.

Shell said it respects the right to peaceful protest, "if it is done safely. That is not the case now. The demonstrators are illegally on our property, where strict safety protocols apply," the company said.

Calls for fossil fuel advertising bans are gaining traction. Earlier this year, Amsterdam imposed a ban in the city's metro network on ads linked to what it called "fossil products" such as gas-powered cars and cheap airline tickets. The municipality called the move a first step in a wider move to remove such ads from the Dutch capital's streets.

The campaign for a law banning ads linked to fossil fuels across the EU needs to gather 1 million verified signatures in a year. If it succeeds, the EU's executive Commission has to look at the request, but is not obliged to take action.

"This legislation would increase public awareness of products and technologies that are responsible for climate change and other environmental and health harms," the environmental coalition said on its website.

Coinciding with the launch, Greenpeace's Dutch branch published a report accusing major energy companies of large scale "greenwashing" in their advertising campaigns – defining  the term as "as a combination of both fossil fuel companies' advertisements promoting genuinely climate friendly initiatives, as well as their advertisements that promote false climate solutions as 'green.'"

The study analyzed more than 3,000 ads on social media by six energy companies and concluded that 63% amounted to greenwashing.

"We can confidently say that all the companies in the dataset are greenwashing, as their advertisements do not accurately reflect their business activities – either through an over-emphasis on their 'green' activities, or an under-emphasis on their fossil fuel activities," the report said.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post 'Fossil fuel adverts belong in a museum,' activists demand appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.