The tsunami that followed the 1995 $Mw$ 7.2 Nuweiba earthquake along the Dead Sea Transform in the Gulf of Elat–Aqaba (GOE) surprised the local population, who were unconcerned by seismogenic sea waves happening in a closed gulf, far away from the open ocean. Eyewitness reports, field observations, and a mareogram recorded near Elat demonstrated conclusively that tsunami hazard in the GOE deserves focused attention. Here we take up the challenge, adopting the GeoClaw package and investigating which of the available Nuweiba earthquake models are capable of better replicating the actual findings. In general, the simulated tsunamis that are based on both the seismological and Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) Nuweiba earthquake models are in line with the eyewitness descriptions of wave height, slight inundation, and limited damage. In addition, the simulations show a reasonable correlation with the amplitude and wave period derived from the analog mareogram, as expected from a tsunamigenic, mostly strike‐slip component earthquake. The InSAR inverse‐based modeling of the coseismic deformation, however, appears closer to the measured parameters of the recorded mareogram. The exception of 3–4 m high waves reported in the Nuweiba port may be the result of local perturbations in the harbor or the effect of a local tsunamigenic submarine landslide. The four countries of Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt that encircle the GOE seek to expand intensively their marine infrastructure, tourism, and population. The present study aims to warn the stakeholders around the GOE about the inevitable tsunamis.

Archaeological and geomorphological features, as well as traces left by tsunamis, earthquakes, and vertical earth-crust displacements, are used to identify sea-level and coastal changes. Such features may be displaced, submerged or eroded by natural processes and human activities. Thus, identifying ancient sea levels and coastal changes associated with such processes may be controversial and often leads to misinterpretations. We exemplify the use of sediment deposits and sea-level and coastline indicators by discussing the enigmatic demise of the Roman harbor of Caesarea, one of the greatest marine constructions built in antiquity, which is still debated and not fully understood. It was suggested that the harbor destruction was mainly the result of either tectonic subsidence associated with a local, active fault line, or as a result of an earthquake/tsunami that struck the harbor. Here we examine and reassess the deterioration of the harbor in light of historical records, and geological, geomorphological and archaeological studies of natural and man-made features associated with the harbor. We show that the alleged evidence of an earthquakes or tsunami-driven damage to the outer breakwaters is equivocal. There is no supporting evidence for the assumed tectonic, active fault, nor is there a reliable historic account of such a catastrophic destruction. It is suggested that geo-technic failure of the breakwater’s foundations caused by a series of annual winter storms was the main reason for the destruction and ultimate collapse of the western basin of the harbor. The breakwaters were constructed on unconsolidated sand that was later washed away by storm waves and sea currents that frequently hit the Israeli coast and undercut the breakwaters. The pounding effect of the waves could have contributed to the destruction by scouring and liquefying the sandy seabed underlying the foundations. Tsunamis that may have hit Caesarea could have added to the deterioration of the breakwaters, but did not constitute the main cause of its destruction.

Reevaluation of geological and archaeological evidence from western Mount Carmel constrains its maximal tectonic uplift since the Middle Pleistocene. Tabun Cave, presently 45 m above sea level (asl), revealed human occupation from about 600 ka to 90 ka before present. The 25 m thick archaeological strata at Tabun are composed of laminated fine sand, silt and clays. Moreover, no marine deposits were found in Tabun or nearby caves. Since sea level in the last 600 ka reached a maximal of 5 to 10 m asl, Tabun Cave could not have been uplifted since then by more than 35 to 40 m, that is a maximal average rate of 58 to 67 mm/ka.