Compromised Environmental Litigation

Enforcing environmental law in cases of harm to the public at large is inherently difficult. In Israel, the state itself acknowledges that it lacks sufficient tools to effectively confront large polluting corporations.

This structural weakness, combined with dispersed public interests and strong, well-resourced corporate actors, results in inadequate deterrence and the externalization of environmental costs onto the public.

Although private enforcement through representative actions could have strengthened deterrence, it has largely fallen short. Environmental litigation increasingly ends in settlement agreements that prioritize expediency over accountability.

These settlements often fail to reflect the full scope of environmental harm or the profits generated by violations, and they typically exclude personal liability for corporate officers. As a result, they undermine deterrence and allow polluters to present themselves as environmentally responsible without assuming real responsibility.

The handling of the Ashalim Stream disaster exemplifies these shortcomings. Despite extensive environmental damage, enforcement mechanisms failed to impose meaningful consequences on either the corporation or its decision-makers, leaving the public and the environment to bear the cost.

To read the full article, visit our website in Hebrew.