Middle East and North Africa

Stefan Olsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Foreign Affairs' report number 15, which deals with motions from the general motion period concerning the Middle East and North Africa.

As a representative for one of the majority parties, I move for the approval of the committee's proposal under all points.

The last day for the submission of motions during the general motion period was October 5 last year, that is, only two days before Hamas's major terrorist attack. The motions treated in the report therefore do not reflect the tragedy that has since unfolded. There is reason to say this at the outset so that those who later take part in the motions and the debate will understand why they do not quite match each other.

Mr. Speaker! When was there actually peace in the Middle East last? I cannot quite remember. My interest in foreign policy issues goes back to when I was a child. I remember that as a 14-year-old, I wrote a long essay about Israel's war in Lebanon. It was 1982. I had to learn about the civil war, about the PLO, about the Druze, about the Maronites, and about Shia and Sunni. I read and wrote about how Israel invaded southern Lebanon to put an end to Palestinian terrorist attacks.

Much later, it feels as if almost nothing has changed in the region. The conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is still not resolved. Israel as a state is still constantly questioned by its neighbors. The PLO has indeed ceased terrorism but has been replaced by Hamas. It is not war in Lebanon, but it is not a stable state. Syria was then, just as now, also restless. Egypt was a dictatorship, and Saudi Arabia was a monarchy. Iraq had recently started a war against Iran. Israel was a democratic island in the middle of it all, but was then, just as now, constantly afraid of being wiped out.

In short: Has anything actually become better in the area?

I am normally an optimistic person. I have often placed my trust in peace negotiations, international interventions, democratic elections, and aid efforts from wealthy countries. But I must admit that a certain sense of hopelessness has nevertheless begun to set in. Will it never be better at any point?

At the same time, one must not give up. When it burns in the Middle East, it hits Sweden sooner or later as well. It is in our interest, in Sweden's interest, to work as much as possible to mitigate all the conflicts that the people of the Middle East are constantly affected by.

Mr. Speaker! At this moment, it is for obvious reasons primarily Hamas's war against Israel that is attracting attention. The war started on October 7 with Hamas's brutal attack against the civilian population in southern Israel. The sole purpose of the attack was to murder, rape, and kidnap civilians in the most heinous ways imaginable.

That Israel would invade Gaza was most likely something that Hamas understood would happen. That the civilian population would be affected, they probably knew that too.

For Sweden's part, it is therefore first and foremost important to condemn Hamas in every way, not only for the attack against Israel but also because the war is an abuse even against its own population. Hamas will never be able to defeat Israel militarily. Continued fighting will only lead to the own population being tormented to no benefit. Hamas hides among the civilian population and thus uses them as human shields. It is one of the explanations for why so many civilians have died in the war.

A surrender by Hamas and an unconditional release of the hostages would mean that the war would come to an immediate end.

Mr. Speaker! Sharp criticism has been directed at Israel's way of waging war. The civilian losses have been very large, and the civilian population is suffering greatly from a lack of food and medical care. The humanitarian distress is extensive. Sweden has therefore, in both the UN and the EU, called for a humanitarian ceasefire so that more aid shipments can reach the civilian population.

Sweden should always urge Israel to exercise restraint in its warfare. International humanitarian law must be followed. Since there are serious questions regarding how Israel has followed the laws of war, it is reasonable for international judicial bodies to examine the war efforts and bring any perpetrators of wrongdoing to justice. Sweden's government should not preempt such a legal process with political declarations regarding committed war crimes.

Mr. Speaker! In the end, the conflict between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples can only be resolved through negotiations that lead to some form of two-state solution. The two groups of people are equal in size if one looks at the entire area, all of Israel and Palestine together. They also live, in parts, in a jumble about each other. There is no other way to resolve the conflict than to let both peoples have a state of their own.

For Israel, it means that one must give up the claims to land in the West Bank, cease settlements and return land that has been illegally claimed for the security barrier. For Palestine, it means that one must abandon all trust in Hamas and other radical movements. Hamas's antisemitic and antidemocratic ideology is incompatible with a civilized society. There will be no place for that type of extremism in a future Palestinian state.

Mr. Speaker! Let me also say something about the situation in the Red Sea. It is no coincidence that Hamas started its war now and that it is followed by attacks from the Houthi rebels against civilian shipping in the Red Sea. The underlying explanation is Iran.

When Russia invaded Ukraine, the Western world was consumed by helping Ukraine, because we understood that it was not only Ukraine's freedom that was at stake, but also our own. This was a correct assessment, but it unfortunately also gave Iran the opportunity to test the boundaries of the international rule of law.

The Houthi rebels themselves claim that the attacks are carried out in sympathy with the Palestinians in Gaza, but it is obviously only a pretext. It is the regime in Iran that is testing how far its power extends.

It is therefore wise of Sweden to participate in the upcoming EU mission that is to protect civilian shipping in the area. At the current stage, it only concerns sending staff officers, which does not require a decision by the Riksdag. But we are not unfamiliar with also sending combat units if it becomes relevant. In the usual order, this should occur against the background of broad support in the Riksdag.

Mr. Speaker! As I mentioned initially, my interest in the Middle East began as a foreign-policy over-interested teenager. Four decades later, the interest has not diminished. Nor have the wars and conflicts. But however dark everything may appear, I still believe that it must get better at some point.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! The situation in Gaza is deeply catastrophic. Children are starving to death right now, and people are even forced to eat grass to survive. The need for aid is enormous.

It is good that the government decided to resume the aid to the UN agency UNRWA, but the support should never have been frozen in the first place. The EU Commission has drawn the same conclusion as well as Canada and several other countries.

A war is ongoing in Gaza, a war that hits innocent civilians grotesquely hard. In that situation, to choke off support to the only aid organization that is large enough and has enough personnel on the ground to make a difference was not only irresponsible – it also risked human lives.

That children must starve to death before the government changed its mind and resumed the aid to UNRWA is frightening. But the government never resumed the development aid to Palestine, which the government stopped in connection with Hamas's brutal attacks on October 7.

Two reviews of Sida have now been conducted, which show that the aid is going to completely correct things and that no money has gone to Hamas. Still, the government is delaying releasing the aid again. I believe this shows a nonchalance towards people's suffering. Why is the development aid not being paid out?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Stefan Olsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! As the member mentioned, the aid was paused for a period to ensure that money had not gone to organizations that have expressed sympathies for the terrorist attack. It was a reasonable measure, as there were statements on social media showing that there were employees in different organizations who actually had these sympathies.

It is true that the pause has been long, and I agree that it is time to resume the aid. If I am not completely misinformed, a decision on continued development aid will be made shortly.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! That sounds good, but the aid should, as said, never have been stopped in this incredibly difficult situation where people are both starving to death and are on the brink of starvation. This applies to both the development aid and the aid to UNRWA.

Two investigations have been conducted, and specifically the development aid did not turn out to have gone to the wrong things at all, but rather to things that counteract terrorism and, for example, Hamas's activities. It went to women's rights organizations, organizations that work for human rights, and so on.

This aid has, in fact, the completely opposite effect, so stopping it was completely wrong. I simply do not understand how one could at all do that in the situation we find ourselves in.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Stefan Olsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I want to point out that the development aid that was not stopped but paused is not humanitarian aid. The government has not changed the humanitarian aid on that point. What I mean here is that the member is sliding a bit on the truth.

I question myself as to why the Left Party does not want to review how the money is used if it emerges that members of these organizations express sympathy for the terrorist attack. In that case, is it not reasonable to carry out a review? But I have probably never once heard that the Left Party has requested such a review.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johan Büser (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Moderate Party's favorite slogan regarding Swedish aid is that it should be effective and carefully controlled. A number of international evaluations have year after year shown that Swedish aid is precisely this. Yet, one thing, which we experience in the public debate, continues: a constant suspicion of the aid in the Moderate rhetoric.

Now we have partially seen what moderate, effective aid is in practice. The in-depth review that Sida was forced to conduct, one might say, in the case of UNRWA cost 650,000 kronor and is a review of over 108,000 posts and messages on social media from organizations that receive a share of the Swedish aid to Palestine. Among all these messages, two messages were found that could in some way be said to support Hamas.

I naturally welcome that the government has now restarted the Swedish support to UNRWA. But I question the management and the cost-effectiveness in this work.

I have also personally recently visited the West Bank. Illegal settlements are ongoing there, and we also see the increased, horrific settler violence. During my visit, I met many civil society organizations working to strengthen, among other things, women and young people. That is a guarantee for achieving democratic development in the region and actually also a guarantee against Hamas.

Nevertheless, the government has stopped the Swedish development aid. It was news to me that a decision will be made soon, and in that case, it is welcome if this is immediately resumed. From the Social Democrats' side, we think it is wrong to collectively punish an entire population.

What does Stefan Olsson personally think about Swedish development aid? Does the member believe that it should be resumed as soon as possible?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Stefan Olsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me answer the last question first: Yes, I think it should be resumed now after the review has been carried out - the review that Member Büser considers unnecessary and costly.

I do not think so myself, because as I have said, there have been statements from people in leadership positions in Palestine who are not linked to Hamas but who have nevertheless expressed a certain sympathy for what has occurred. I therefore do not think at all that it was strange that this review was carried out.

I am not in the least disappointed that the government ordered Sida to carry out a renewed review because the first report was actually totally abysmal. When I read it, I thought that this reasonably cannot be a review. It was a description of which aid efforts have been made, not of whether they have been good and effective or whether money has gone to the wrong organizations.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johan Büser (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Olsson, for the answer!

I would like to ask another question concerning the information we saw in the media yesterday about two Moderate members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Margareta Cederfelt and John Weinerhall, who recently visited Israel. There are uncertainties regarding the financing of the trip, and the members have, as I have seen, avoided answering questions regarding who has financed these trips.

I assume that responsibility is taken in the Moderate party group and point out the importance of good judgment now, as well as that the members can also answer openly on how these trips have been financed.

What I find most relevant regarding this trip and what has been reported, which so often is the case when the right-wing government's parties are out traveling in the region, is that the programs are very one-sided. From what I understand, these two members only met with Israeli representatives despite the notably difficult situation in the region as a whole. Several of the representatives who were met are also reported to have stated, for example, that UNRWA is a hostile organization and that severe epidemics in Gaza will bring the Israeli victory closer. I think these are striking statements given the position the Swedish government has taken recently.

I would therefore like to ask how Member Olsson views this journey in its entirety, both regarding the transparency concerning the funding and regarding those who have been met now that the Swedish government is also requesting a ceasefire and has restored the support to UNRWA.

Does Member Olsson not think that one should meet representatives for both Israel and Palestine when choosing to travel to this region?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Stefan Olsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The only thing I know about these trips is that they have been carried out and that it is on the members' own initiative. I can only speak for what the party organization as such has decided, and it is nothing in this matter. Members of Parliament do their own trips. Therefore, I do not have more information about what kind of trip it actually was, how it was financed, and why they went on it, but I believe that Member Büser should ask the question to the members who went on the trip.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Member Weinerhall is welcome to sign up on the speaking list to participate in the debate. Then we can take a reply from him, so that he can answer our questions.

It is important to get clarifications regarding these trips, which we have previously criticized the Sweden Democrats and the Christian Democrats for. Now we also have Moderates who are making trips about which we receive no answers. The interesting thing, Mr. Speaker, is that the Moderate member John E Weinerhall made such a trip to Israel already in April 2023. In a statement afterwards on social media, he expressed that the Swedish police should take inspiration from the Israeli police.

On the West Bank, the violence against Palestinians is now so institutionalized that it is everyday life for them. It is degrading. Right now, it aims to restrict freedom of religion and forbid people from visiting mosques during the holiday of Ramadan. Since October 7, 420 Palestinians have been killed in the West Bank and nearly 5,000 injured. 900 Palestinians have been displaced due to the destruction of their homes, and 670 so-called search and arrest operations have been carried out by Israeli forces in the West Bank including East Jerusalem.

So, it was not the most recent trip I was talking about. Yesterday we learned that John E Weinerhall had once again made a trip to Israel, this time together with his Moderate colleague Margareta Cederfelt. We could see with our own eyes at Tuesday's meeting how they fled to our committee room to avoid the journalists' questions. One wonders why we do not get answers to the questions. This time, the trip was paid for by a pro-Israel organization, ACJ, and the program was, as Büser pointed out, deeply pro-Israel. Why do the Moderates go on these trips, paid for by pro-Israel groups that often legitimize violence and settlements, when they simultaneously say that they are for a two-state policy? I really cannot make sense of it. Why does the government base do this over and over again? That is what I would like to have answers to.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Stefan Olsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! My answer to Member Svenneling will be roughly the same as the one I gave to Johan Büser: He may direct these questions to the members who went on the trip. I do not have information regarding what this trip was or what motives lie behind it. Member Svenneling knows the members he is speaking about very well and can contact them and inquire about the situation regarding these trips.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I believe there is a public interest in members of Parliament answering where they travel, especially when journalists have questions about it. The Christian Democrats have answered regarding the latest trip, even though the answers raise new questions. I think the Moderates also need to answer the questions. It becomes very problematic when you meet official government representatives but also people from different types of settler organizations and other organizations. Israel now has a rather far-right government where it includes settler parties that drive the policy and make statements for which one absolutely can take them to court internationally.

The settler movement has carried out 658 attacks against Palestinians over the last half-year, which have led to injured and killed Palestinians and destroyed property. But just as the member himself pointed out in his speech, this is an occupation that has been ongoing for a long time. A displacement of people already occurred in 1948, which leaves deep marks even today.

The moment I agreed with the member the most was when he said that nothing has become better. Former Defense Minister Peter Hultqvist from the Socialdemokraterna, who has also been committed to Palestine for a long time, usually says that one becomes very frustrated as a Swedish politician over why it does not get better.

Here in Sweden, this issue is more divisive than any other foreign policy issue. I therefore wonder if it is not our task and our responsibility to reach an agreement, stand up for the two-state solution, be clear about where we travel and whom we meet, and work to ensure that conditions on the ground improve.

What is happening now is horrific, but it also means that in a way, there is a better opportunity to change the conditions on the ground. But then one cannot continue to coddle Netanyahu's government and support the settler movement in the way we see the right-wing parties doing.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! There is one thing Svenneling says in his reply that is actually very interesting. The Moderates and the Left Party agree on what the ultimate goal must be, namely a two-state solution. One might think that the debate in the chamber on these issues would be of such a character that we were each other's enemies, which we are, for example, when it comes to tax policy. But that is not actually the case, rather here we have the same goal.

But again: the Moderates are not a party that forbids its Members of Parliament from traveling abroad. We do not have a policy that says we only arrange trips under the party's auspices. We are not a collective group in that sense, but what is characteristic of the Moderates is that it is a group of individuals who very often make their own decisions. In this case, two members have chosen to go on a trip to Israel about which I have no specific information. Therefore, I cannot give the answers that Svenneling wishes I could give him.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Madam Speaker! It may be possible that trips could be made to the entire area, so that one sees both the Palestinian and the Israeli agenda. I believe that is educational. At least I have seen it as very valuable. It is a tip. But I did not request the floor for a reply on just this, but I have a couple of other questions.

The first question concerns the support to the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian organizations. From the Center Party's side, we were okay with a review being conducted after October 7. When that review was completed in the first stage, we thought that one would ensure that the aid was paid out. But now, actually, three months have passed without the aid being paid out. The government has forced Sida to break contracts with organizations that conducted activities in the Palestinian environment. It is strange that a government that thinks it is important to assert law and order forces an agency to break contracts. I wonder how the Moderaterna view this breach of contract.

The second thing I wonder about concerns the reviews that have been conducted in the latter part. Of a total of 148 reviewed organizations, it has been found that not a single one appeared on the EU's sanctions list. Why has it taken such a long time to reach the conclusion that the aid should be resumed?

Question three is: What is the Moderaterna's view regarding UNRWA – should it cease or continue?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Breach of contract is never good. In the event that this has occurred, I assume that the government, via Sida, compensates the organizations where the breach of contract has occurred.

Kerstin Lundgren asks why the review took so long. If Sida had conducted a proper review from the very beginning, when the government ordered this, it naturally would not have had to be delayed. But because the first review did not meet the correct quality, the government was forced to give Sida a new assignment and request that the authority submit what it should have submitted from the beginning. That is the explanation for the delay.

The last question was how we should proceed with UNRWA. Here is the government's view, which I share entirely, that this is actually an organization that should be phased out and integrated into the UN's other agencies. The UN has created a refugee organization for a single population group. This happened a very long time ago, but it is not a good construction at its core.

Now Sweden will pay out money to UNRWA because it is needed for the humanitarian support in Gaza. But in the longer term, it is necessary that the organization is phased out in one way or another.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Madam Speaker! It sounds good if the government would be prepared to provide a compensation for breach of contract if Sida has been forced to commit a breach of contract against its partners. We will have to follow up on that.

Madam Speaker! The question of UNRWA is more complicated than the government and the Moderates obviously believe. One reason why UNRWA was formed was actually Folke Bernadotte's work to find solutions to the conflict.

The reason the organization exists is that we have not achieved a two-state solution during the 76 years that have passed since Israel was formed. The refugee issue has not been resolved. It is part of the entire conflict environment we are talking about.

To then tell the international community that we want a two-state solution and at the same time, perhaps with a stroke of a pen, draw a line through the organization that is part of the solution would be strange.

UNRWA will not be needed the day we have a two-state solution in place. Let us focus on a two-state solution and not withdraw yet another part of the puzzle that must be put together for the conflict to reach a solution that we have long desired.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I just want to point out that I am not speaking for the government. The question of how we should proceed with the breaches of contract must be asked by the member directly to the government to obtain correct information.

When it comes to UNRWA's future, UNRWA shall be phased out at the same time as there is a two-state solution. The fact is that UNRWA's existence in itself delays the emergence of a two-state solution because the agency itself functions as the Palestinians' public sector in refugee camps in the countries where the organization is present.

The states that have Palestinian refugee camps on their territories do not take responsibility for the people who are within the state's territory. It is a rather strange exception that we have agreed that states such as Lebanon, Syria and Jordan shall be allowed to have.

It is not normal. The normal thing is that a state always takes responsibility for all people on its territory. We could never have a refugee camp in Sweden that was managed by a UN organization with money from abroad. We would never accept it ourselves, and the international community would not accept it either.

UNRWA is a construction that was intended as a provisional measure, but it has become a permanent provisional measure. Therefore, it is fundamentally not a good organization.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Middle East and the Near East - it was here that the very earliest human civilizations arose. The region has played a central role in world history, and much of humanity's earliest cultural heritage rests here. At least three world religions have been founded here, and their most important sites are still found here. Jerusalem is one of the Middle East's most important religious sites with historical environments such as the Temple Mount, the Western Wall and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

The Middle East and North Africa are dominated by authoritarian regimes and low political freedom. According to The Economist's democracy index, it can be stated that Israel is the only democracy in the region, ranked higher than several European countries. This also means that the world's expectations for the country are high when it comes to conducting the ongoing defensive war in Gaza in accordance with international law and international humanitarian law, and to achieving a humanitarian ceasefire and access for humanitarian aid, while Hamas must immediately release the hostages and be neutralized as an organization. The war stands between a democratic state and a terrorist organization that must be fought with all force.

The Committee deals in this report with the Middle East and North Africa. The Committee's assessments and positions in the report are based on the information that was available at the time of the adjustment of the report, which is worth noting as the development is fluid and boiling in many parts.

In the report, there are 13 reservations and 4 special statements. In one special statement, we Sverigedemokrater explain that we will vote for approval of the committee's justification in point 7 regarding aid to Palestine if the Chamber were to reject our proposal for announcement in the same point. That being said, I move for approval of Sverigedemokraternas reservation 8 and, otherwise, for approval of the committee's proposal in the report and rejection of the other reservations.

Madam Speaker! Since the general motion period for the parliamentary session ended on 6 October 2023, that is before the Hamas attack on 7 October, the committee has not had any motions to process that specifically concern the war in Gaza, but it nevertheless reports very clear positions on the issue.

During the preparation process, we have had information sessions with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Cabinet Secretary. We have also received the Assistant Director-General for the World Food Programme to receive information on the humanitarian situation in Gaza.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Defence have both informed about the government's considerations regarding potential Swedish military interventions in the Red Sea. It can also be added in this context that the committee during last spring had several presentations from experts on the UN Genocide Convention.

The Sweden Democrats have been one of the clearest parties in the Riksdag behind our long-term and fundamental support for Israel and its right to defend itself, not least since the terror attack on October 7. In line with the government, we unreservedly condemn the terrorist group Hamas and its attack on Israel which initiated the ongoing war.

I welcome, in addition to the adoption of the new sanctions regime against Hamas which was adopted in January this year, proposals for further sanctions against Hamas. Sweden's demand that all remaining people held hostage must be released immediately and unconditionally cannot be overemphasized.

We all see an enormous human suffering in both Gaza and Israel and that the concern is growing over the great losses of human lives, many of which are children, and the sanitary situation as well as the famine. The international negotiators need to achieve a humanitarian ceasefire and immediate and secure access to Gaza. It is of utmost importance that water, medicines and other life-saving goods reach civilians promptly and securely.

For this, one needs to conduct a constructive dialogue with Israel. Sverigedemokraterna supports diplomatic efforts by regional parties, the UN and the USA to initiate a peace process that in the long run can lead to a two-state solution and which also aims to avoid a regional escalation.

In the same breath, it is important to establish that it requires a credible counterpart for Israel, where Hamas is not included, and which seriously recognizes Israel's existence and right to freedom and territorial integrity. Antisemitism and hatred of Israel are widespread throughout the region, and the pogroms of history are constantly repeated against the Israeli people on the limited area we call Israel. I do not believe we can imagine the condition that has shaped the collective consciousness throughout history and after the Holocaust.

The Tidö parties strive for a good bilateral relationship with Israel where both countries can have a dialogue on deepened cooperation and express criticism in difficult issues. Sweden has a long-term interest in deepening the relationship with Israel in areas such as research, green transition, smart industry, and not least the work against antisemitism. I also welcome that the Foreign Minister in the government's foreign policy declaration earlier this year stated that Swedish engagement in Israel shall increase further over time.

Madam Speaker! The committee notes that Sweden has for several years been a major donor to UNRWA and considers that the organization needs to diversify its funding. Several investigations into UNRWA's links to Hamas and terrorist activities are ongoing, and it is clear that a powerful reforming needs to take place.

The most important message for those of us who have long been critical of the UN agency is that the committee in this report welcomes that Sweden's position is that UNRWA's mandate shall cease in the long term and be incorporated into UNHCR or another appropriate UN agency. This corresponds to our motion to phase out UNRWA, which has for a long time struggled with corruption, antisemitism, and inefficiency, and today faces increasingly grave allegations of links to terrorism.

One of the most important objectives of aid policy is to alleviate distress and prevent death, and against that background, it is important to create conditions so that other aid organizations are given the conditions for an infrastructure and distribution that can meet UNRWA's so that humanitarian aid does not falter even if UNRWA is phased out.

I also want to touch upon the Sweden Democrats' reservation regarding aid to the Palestinian Authority in this context. For us, it is vital to phase out the aid, unless otherwise, until the recurring problems with corruption and lack of legal certainty have been addressed. Sweden must set requirements that the Palestinian Authority better fulfills democratic principles and respects human rights in order to receive bilateral Swedish aid.

Madam Speaker! We move to Iran. The Sweden Democrats' support for the freedom movement in the country is long-standing and clear here in the chamber. The committee was unanimous in the announcement that the chamber supported at the last parliamentary session, that Sweden shall work for a terror listing of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, not least against the background of the Sweden Democrats' motion on the issue.

Recent events in Iran and the oppression and threats against exiled Iranians show once again how important it is to move forward. The government must take measures to put pressure on Iran. The oppression against its own population is cemented and hardening. Iran, together with Russia and China, constitutes the greatest threat to Sweden, and serious intelligence activities and security-threatening activities are being conducted in our own country.

We await the government's announcement regarding which measures have been taken in light of the Riksdag's announcement and will closely monitor that Sweden is proactive in the international community for measures against Iran's regime so that the violence, the killings, and the threats against Iranians inside and outside the country shall cease.

Madam Speaker! The situation in the Middle East and North Africa is multifaceted and complex, and a brief overview of all current issues in closer to eight minutes is not possible. But we look forward to a continued dynamic debate.

In conclusion, I shall say something about the Red Sea. It is a lifeline for civilian shipping in world trade that needs to be protected, and I am pleased that Sweden is contributing to that work. Regarding any further contributions of forces, the Sweden Democrats will be a constructive party in the discussions on needs that must be weighed against capacity and Swedish interests. It may then become a question to be posed during the Riksdag's decision-making, and which we must then take a stand on. It is clear that terrorism and piracy must never prevail.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johan Büser (S)

Madam Speaker! A clear position that is official from Israel's side is that they avoid contacts with the Sweden Democrats on the grounds of the party's history and statements that its representatives have made in modern times, for example that Jews cannot be real Swedes.

Despite this, the party leader of the Moderate Party, Jimmie Åkesson, traveled to Israel and managed to secure a meeting with Amichai Chikli. He is, as is known, the diaspora minister in Israel. It has been noted that large parts of his own diaspora do not want anything to do with him because of extreme statements he has made. He has also expressed himself disparagingly about homosexuals, and he has close ties to the settlement movement, which acts illegally.

I would like to ask the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Aron Emilsson, how the member views Jimmie Åkesson meeting this Chikli. Does member Emilsson consider that SD shares a common opinion with this representative, or is he prepared to, here and now, distance himself from Chikli's statements?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Johan Büser, for the question! I was myself on the trip together with several from the party leadership. It was important to meet representatives of the Israeli government but also relatives of the hostages and other organizations that could give us a glimpse of what the national trauma in Israel looks like after what has happened.

There is no larger political movement in Sweden that is completely free from historical guilt when it comes to antisemitism. But to the extent that contemporary anti-Jewish attitudes have a clear political home on the left-right scale, there is much that shows that it has predominantly been on the left. In cases where opinions are put into action and Swedish tax money over the last decades has been used to support antisemitic organizations in Palestine that exercise violence against civilian Jews, the support for this has also primarily come from the left.

Studies have also shown that alongside Islamists, people with strong left-wing views are the group that to the greatest extent subjects the Swedish Jewish minority to harassment and hate crimes. This is also happening in our country. I believe that one should also look more closely at the role that the Swedish left, including the Social Democrats, has in this regard.

When it comes to the individual statements that Minister Chikli has made, I find it difficult to review individual statements that were not made while we were on site. I also do not know in what context these have been uttered. But based on what has been presented here, I find it difficult to see that they lie particularly close to the Sverigedemokraternas policy, but rather the opposite. It is not strange; even Johan Büser and his colleagues have in many cases met representatives in other countries whose statements and comments they do not agree with.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johan Büser (S)

Madam Speaker! I still think the core of the trips you undertake, the statements you make and so on, is that the Sweden Democrats as a party have an incredibly one-sided view in the conflict between Israel and Palestine.

Unfortunately, the largest party in the government base and your actions on the issue risk leading to increased polarization. I am afraid that groups here at home also risk being pitted against each other. It is connected to you as a party, your business idea and, to some extent, your raison d'être.

Now, the Swedish right-wing government has nevertheless changed positions after we Social Democrats have pushed for it. We see a changed position when it comes to the immediate ceasefire and the demand for resumed support for UNRWA. Clear condemnations are now also present in the government's text regarding illegal occupation and the illegal settlers.

I want to give the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Aron Emilsson, the opportunity to clearly distance himself from illegal settlements and to comment on the fact that the government has resumed support for UNRWA. I believe it would be of interest to the public to hear what the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the Swedish Riksdag thinks about the government's view on the Swedish Israel and Palestine policy.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! From the Sweden Democrats' side, we have been clear that we have not agreed with the government on resuming the payments to UNRWA. It is also about the fact that we have for a long time directed criticism at Sweden supporting UNRWA financially. We believe that the organization is also, from an organizational perspective, a strange bird in the UN system that is rather part of the deadlock in the Israel-Palestine conflict than the solution. I think it is important to establish that.

The Social Democrats have pointed out that aid to UNRWA should be resumed and that it was wrong to take a pause and evaluate the serious allegations that have emerged regarding links to terrorism that have included UNRWA employees. Employees are said to have participated in terrorist organizations, not just Hamas, and terrorist infrastructure exists and has existed under UNRWA's facilities.

I therefore have a question for Johan Büser, which now has to become a rhetorical question since we have no further replies. To some extent, the Social Democrats need to show what applies. Should the criticism of pausing this form of aid be interpreted when such serious facts emerge as that there is a new practice regarding Social Democratic aid policy? Is this completely okay? Does it not matter that much if Swedish tax money and Swedish aid go to organizations that house employees who have sympathies for terrorism and who have been directly involved?

There is a long list of the employees who have now been accused. It states what position they hold within both UNRWA and Hamas. There is further information on how one has neither historically nor today managed to get to the bottom of the dirty web of connections that exists. These are connections to both anti-Semitic organizations, terrorism under the Hamas umbrella, and other infrastructure, where this is closely intertwined. We see the militant part of Hamas and how UNRWA employees appear civil and in relation to the UN system but fail to distance themselves.

I actually do not understand why the Social Democrats are so eager to defend the type of organization that harbors these pervasive and profound problems.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! In a post on Facebook, Jimmie Åkesson writes that the party is very concerned about the government's announcement regarding the UNRWA aid. Resuming aid via UNRWA risks having the opposite effect, writes Åkesson.

What does the leader of the Sweden Democrats mean? Do Åkesson and the Sweden Democrats not see what is happening before our eyes in Gaza? Do you not see that children are starving to death and that 2 million people are suffering from famine? Do you not see how people are becoming increasingly desperate and are even forced to eat grass and animal feed to survive? Do you not see how the entire healthcare system has been knocked out and how pregnant women are forced to undergo C-sections without anesthesia?

Words are not enough to describe the depth of the humanitarian catastrophe and the human suffering that is ongoing in Gaza.

When the government finally chooses to resume the aid to UNRWA, an aid that should never have been stopped, the Sweden Democrats oppose this. It is completely incomprehensible that the Sweden Democrats do not want to contribute to saving the lives of Palestinian women and children. Why?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is remarkable that the Left Party takes such a high tone in accusing the government base and the government of having been irresponsible when we froze the aid to UNRWA, as well as regarding Sida stopping the payments of development aid to Palestine according to its routines in light of all the information that has emerged since October 7 last year.

Naturally, we all see, and it also appears in the report that we have presented in the committee and which we are debating today, the immense humanitarian distress. We see the suffering, the famine, and the sanitary situation. It also appears in the position papers that even the Sweden Democrats stand behind.

Then we have completely different views on UNRWA as an organization and whether one should continue the path taken with long-term development aid to Palestine in this situation. Since 1994, at least 50 billion has been paid out, in the magnitude of the entire annual Swedish aid budget, to projects that have not succeeded in creating a functioning constitution or a democratic state. Nor have they succeeded in creating better conditions for women or achieving the equality goals that the Left Party usually speaks warmly about. They have not created a better situation for human rights or fought corruption.

Somewhere one must take the time and space to evaluate: How is it going? Where is it going wrong? What do we need to do right? Based on all the information that has emerged regarding UNRWA's infrastructure and employees who have had links to Hamas and the terror movement, it is obvious, I believe, that it is not possible to send a single penny to an organization that is unable to maintain the democratic path. It should not be controversial to say that in the Swedish Riksdag.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! Of course, things can be investigated. But to freeze and stop aid in this catastrophic situation is terrifying, because it risks lives. We already see that very many people have died. Israel's military occupation in Gaza has led to more children, more journalists, more medical personnel and more UN personnel being killed than anywhere else in the world during a conflict since the Second World War.

The government's announcement that Sweden is resuming support to the UN agency UNRWA was naturally welcome, but the support should never have been frozen. In the difficult situation that Gaza finds itself in, when so many innocent civilians are affected so grotesquely severely, choking off support to the only aid organization that is large enough and has enough staff on the ground to make a difference risks human lives. UNRWA is the only organization that has the possibility to reach out.

One cannot also accuse the entire organization for what possibly a number of people might have done. It must naturally be investigated, but the entire organization cannot be accused. It does not bear the responsibility. The accusations that the member here presents against UNRWA are also largely completely incorrect.

It is completely incomprehensible that the Sweden Democrats oppose starving children and pregnant women receiving food, water, and aid from the UN to survive. How many children actually need to die before the Sweden Democrats change their opinion on the support for UNRWA?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I do not know if Lotta Johnsson was attentive during my speech. I was very clear then that the humanitarian situation in Gaza is appalling and needs to be addressed and improved urgently. I mentioned immediate access for humanitarian aid. I mentioned a humanitarian ceasefire at this moment. Opening more border crossings, not least in the north, is absolutely crucial. It is better to focus on using existing port infrastructure to bring in humanitarian aid by sea than to focus on new, long-term infrastructure solutions with new port constructions and other such things. We have addressed all of that at various meetings with aid organizations, UN bodies, and others whom we have met here in Stockholm.

I agree that there is an enormous amount to be done here and now. But it is also a matter of being critical of sources. We know today that Hamas members are dominant in several places in UNRWA's education system. Over the years, we have seen how much anti-Semitic teaching material is conveyed through programs that have been financed through UNRWA. We see principals, school staff, and others who have had and have Hamas links. We see how UNRWA facilities and UNRWA infrastructure have been used by Hamas.

This has naturally not occurred without UNRWA's knowledge. Of course, they are well aware of it. This must be investigated to the bottom. It has been a part of why this is now to be scrutinized properly and a total screening be conducted.

We also have a responsibility to ensure that the humanitarian aid and all the aid we provide reaches the right recipients. To simply continue as before according to some kind of "laissez-faire" principle is, in fact, to deprive the people who need to be reached by the aid of the opportunity to receive a share of it.

Sweden's contribution to UNRWA has also not been decisive. It does not help how large UNRWA is as an organization when neither UNRWA, World Food Programme nor other aid organizations have been able to gain the access that has been required in Gaza.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! I had two reflections when I heard Aron Emilsson's speech.

One concerns this which we often hear right-wing representatives say, namely that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. That is true in the sense that they hold elections and so on. But democracy is also about much more – that one has a free press, permission for demonstrations and a functioning judiciary, as well as that one treats all people within one's state equally.

Israel is also an occupying power in the Middle East. This fundamentally means that Palestinians and Israelis on occupied land are treated completely differently. Israelis are judged in civil courts and Palestinians in military courts. Israel also has many Palestinians who are Israeli citizens and have the right to vote in Israel. This is something that often does not come out, but 20-25 percent of Israel's population is an Arab-Palestinian minority.

What do the conditions look like then? Many human rights organizations have looked at this and concluded that Israel has a system that is essentially becoming apartheid. People are divided based on ethnic affiliation. One has also, under the current government, had an extensive process to cut into the judiciary in such a way that political courts would be appointed.

My reflection is how this squares with Aron Emilsson claiming that Israel is a democracy. There are organizations that say these are clear signs that it is an apartheid state.

My second reflection concerns sanctions. Aron Emilsson was very clear that he wanted sanctions against Hamas. But does he want to see sanctions against the Israeli settlers who exercise violence and carry out the displacement of Palestinians in the West Bank, who kill and injure Palestinians and who are supported by the settler organizations that we have pointed out the right-wing government has contacts with and meets? That is what I wonder.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question, Håkan Svenneling!

Quite rightly, democracy, the concept of democracy, has many meanings – not just to hold general elections and have a constitutional administration that functions.

Then it is not, as Håkan Svenneling claimed, only I who assert that Israel is the only functioning democracy in the Middle East. I referred to The Economist's democracy index in my speech, and they are usually a credible voice in this. In their annual list, it is clear, even this year, that Israel ranks higher in the ranking than many European countries do, countries that we cooperate with daily within the EU and other organizations in the international community. In many respects, Israel is better off purely democratically.

Then there are, naturally, problems, and I am not unfamiliar with addressing them – for example, that Israel is now looking at reforms of the judiciary, something that has been topical in recent years, or other constitutional reforms that have resonated internationally. I also mentioned in my speech that towards states with which one has a close relationship and understanding, it must also be possible to convey critical issues and confront them. I naturally believe that this should also be possible towards Israel. But it must never lead to an argumentation that in any way undermines, threatens, or questions Israel's existence or right to freedom and life in this place on earth.

In the committee's report, which we are now debating, it is very clear that even we Sweden Democrats stand behind looking more closely at sanctions against militant extreme settlers, in accordance with what, for example, the USA has expressed. It is clear in the report, and I stand by the fact that it may be necessary to do so. Then one must look at which instruments are most accurate and what has been most successful of what other countries have now tested. I truly hope that the government is keeping an eye on this.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! It is very interesting to hear the Sweden Democrats reason about democracy and state that Israel has a better democracy index than states in Europe. Those are countries such as Hungary, Poland, partially Slovenia and Slovakia, where there are parties that the Sweden Democrats cooperate with. Within the European Parliament, for example, one sits in the same party groups as several from these countries. That is what strikes one when one hears Aron Emilsson speak about democracy.

The second thing is that in this context, it becomes a way to legitimize Israel and everything Israel does by saying: But Israel is a democracy. Therefore, we cannot criticize Israel.

One very rarely hears right-wing politicians raise the problems with democracy in Israel. There is clear evidence for and accusations against Israel for being an apartheid state, where people are divided based on ethnic background.

I have no problem criticizing democracy in both Hungary and Poland and also in many of the dictatorships in the Middle East. The Left Party also does so in the committee report and in the motion that we have written in today's committee report.

The problem is also that Israel pushes back the need for Palestinian democracy. Something we often hear from right-wing representatives is that in Palestine, they haven't had elections for a very long time. This is fundamentally very problematic and also something I have often highlighted. But it is Israel as the occupying power that prevents elections from being held in East Jerusalem. It is very important to remember that.

If the Palestinians were to hold elections without East Jerusalem being included, it would be a recognition of Israel as an occupying power. One would give up Palestinian areas by saying that one does not have the right to vote there. The people living there do not have the right to vote in Israeli elections.

It is very important that Sweden does not describe Israel as a full-fledged democracy but sees the problematic shortcomings in the Israeli state. Above all, it is important to work for a two-state solution, so that two democracies can live side by side and people have freedom and democracy.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! A two-state solution requires, to begin with, that both parties recognize the other's right to exist, and that is not the situation today.

We also see a development in the West Bank, where more and more within Fatah are unable to distance themselves from Hamas's terror attack against Israel on October 7. We see movements and organizations in the underground under both Fatah and Hamas that are strengthening their positions also in the West Bank, but which previously have nevertheless been able to function reasonably well in relation to Hamas's rule on the Gaza Strip.

There are naturally reasons to critically highlight and discuss also the dark parts of the Swedish left's history of ideas, attitude, and actions in relation to Israel and Palestine and not least in relation to Hamas, Fatah, and other political actors in the region. It becomes a strange accusation here, because I just said that we are quite in agreement in the Foreign Affairs Committee that we need to address the issue of militant and extremist settlers. We also do this together with the USA in the transatlantic dialogue with other like-minded states. There is a consensus there about also raising critical issues towards Israel and holding them to account if required. But it also requires that one settles the thicket of antisemitism and the hatred of Israel that exists in the vegetation both in the Gaza Strip and in the West Bank.

I mentioned a number of examples where we can still see major problems, for example the organization UNRWA and their relationship to Hamas. I would like to hear Håkan Svenneling elaborate on how that is viewed, which we have not touched upon now. But I believe there is reason to return to that.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the speech.

There were a few things that I caught on during the presentation and that I would like to have some clarification on.

One thing concerns your desire to shut down UNRWA and replace it with UNHCR. Anyone who knows anything about refugee history and what governs refugees' rights immediately sees the Refugee Convention of 1951. The first article in the Refugee Convention concerns refugees' right to return.

Returning refugees are something that one often hears the Sweden Democrats talk about, like the right to return to the countries and territories they come from. It is something that is actively promoted even here in Sweden.

Therefore, my first questions to Member Aron Emilsson are: Does this also apply to Palestinian refugees? Should they have the same rights as the rest of the world's refugees? Should they have the right to return? That is, in fact, the right that we all fight for refugees to have.

Refugees were forced to flee during the Palestinian mandate in 1947, the nakba in 1948, and the war in 1967. People live today in refugee camps that UNRWA operates in Gaza, in refugee camps in the West Bank, in Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and around the world. You always speak about the right of return. What do the Sweden Democrats think about the Palestinians' right of return?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by saying that I am glad that Jacob Risberg is still catching on to something, because it is important to highlight the political dividing lines here in the chamber.

Naturally, UNRWA came into being in another time, in another historical context, and based on the refugee convention. Universally speaking, of course, all people need to have an opportunity to return to their homes. It is very important. But it also requires some kind of understanding of the terrain, the political deadlocks, what is actually taking place, and what the conditions are for this in reality. It is one thing with utopian visions and another how it actually looks on the ground.

UNRWA is, as an organization, as Stefan Olsson also mentioned in a previous exchange of remarks, part of the deadlock in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Many Palestinian refugees have been locked into an eternal refugee status, which is not a long-term solution. There are very many knots that need to be untied in the region and in the Israel-Palestine conflict. I completely agree with that, and naturally, it needs to be addressed.

As I have said before, we shall not shrink from asking critical questions and, in the international organizations and communities in which we operate, try to achieve the long-term goal of a two-state solution according to the Oslo Accords 1993. But it is a fact right now that fewer and fewer believe in it as a practical solution here and now, while still keeping it warm as a theoretical idea. We also need to address the question of how we can contribute to this being able to have better realpolitik conditions.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Emilsson for the answer.

It is interesting that one must consider the terrain, the local conditions and so on regarding the right of return. We will definitely take that with us to other issues. It is going to be exciting.

It is also another thing that I got hung up on. You have a motion concerning the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. I also think that is a very interesting issue, and you are not the only party pushing it. I think that one is somewhat anticipating the two-state solution that the Sweden Democrats themselves claim to want to safeguard.

According to the UN partition plan, Jerusalem would be an internationally governed city that would not belong to any country. But the Sweden Democrats want it to belong to Israel. I wonder then: If one anticipates the two-state solution, which one have the Sweden Democrats in that case intended to be the Palestinians' capital? You are so eager to already go ahead regarding one side's right to a different capital than the one we recognize today. Which city have you intended to be the Palestinians' capital?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Unlike Jacob Risberg, I am ideologically social-conservative and have a nationalist worldview. This also means that I have a starting point that applies universally, which says that every people should primarily be involved themselves in what is their way of governing and organizing their country. This also applies to the choice of capital. I do not, therefore, intend to delve into that discussion here and now. I think it is important that it is taken up locally, regionally, not least for the sake of the Palestinians and in their political dialogue with neighboring actors.

It is naturally the case that we are in favor of a two-state solution. I have, however, unfortunately for many reasons, very difficulty seeing that there are realistic conditions for such a solution right now and over time due to the deadlocks in the region. We all know that, but it does not prevent us from striving for it. It is good that we have activity in all our international organizations and can cooperate through the European Union and within the UN system and try to get more Swedes into heavier positions even in these contexts. To promote Swedish interests is, of course, very important.

Again: I do not see that there is any actual conflict between Miljöpartiet and Sverigedemokraterna on the issue of achieving a two-state solution. But I also see what the terrain looks like and the realpolitik conditions. I think it is important to dig where we stand and see what we can do here and now to try to strengthen the conditions rather than merely holding ourselves to utopian dimensions of this issue which, for regrettable reasons, currently do not have the prerequisites to reach a solution.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Yusuf Aydin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Today's debate concerns the Middle East and North Africa in a historical context but also in the present day. It is both an important and complex region. I will initially speak about the serious conflict in Israel and Palestine and later touch upon other countries and conflicts in the region.

On October 7, Israel and its civilian population were subjected to a loathsome attack by the terrorist organization Hamas, where over 1,200 people were murdered. We strongly condemn this. We therefore also stand behind Israel's right to defend itself in accordance with international law and international humanitarian law.

Our view that Israel has the right to defend itself does not mean that we unreservedly support everything that Israel does. The terrorist group Hamas must be disarmed and its rule dismantled for the sake of both the Israelis and the Palestinians. They show no respect for any human life, nor for Palestinian lives when these are used as human shields. Hamas must also release all remaining people held hostage immediately and unconditionally.

At the same time, Israel needs to do more to protect civilians. The humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza is ongoing and continues to worsen with an unimaginable human suffering and an acute shortage of food and other supplies as a result. Children and other vulnerable groups, particularly in northern Gaza, are suffering from starvation. A heavy responsibility for the people's suffering lies with Hamas, which started the war on October 7.

For some time now, it has been evident that the civilian casualties, the suffering, and the number of civilians killed in Gaza are very large. Israel needs to act immediately to let in humanitarian aid on a much larger scale than today and act in other ways to protect civilians from the effects of the warfare against Hamas. The Christian Democrats want to see an immediate humanitarian ceasefire.

Madam Speaker! Sweden is a major core donor to several humanitarian actors operating on the ground. Since the outbreak of the war, we have contributed approximately 290 million SEK in additional humanitarian aid to civilians in Gaza. The UN agency UNRWA has accepted commitments on tightened control requirements, which makes it possible for Sweden to resume the payments there.

The Christian Democrats' long-term goal is to transfer the responsibility from UNRWA to UNHCR, which handles all other refugee situations in the world, as soon as it is practically possible, and thereby begin to phase out UNRWA. In this acute situation, when the need is great and the civilian population is suffering, the priority, however, is first and foremost to save lives. The government is also working together with the EU and like-minded countries so that Israel will enable faster, safer, and more extensive humanitarian deliveries.

The Christian Democrats further believe that Israel must seriously address the unacceptable settlement violence in the West Bank and cease the expansion of settlements. The settlements violate international law and undermine the possibilities of reaching a two-state solution. A negotiated two-state solution, where Israel and Palestine coexist, is and remains the only sustainable path toward peace. It is also important with joint diplomatic efforts, including from regional actors, the EU, USA, and the UN, to avoid further escalation with the risk of a full-scale regional war and other spillover effects in the region.

Madam Speaker! In the region, there is also Egypt, a large and strategically important country, which can play an important role for development and for the work of creating peace and stability. This week, an agreement was signed between the EU and Egypt on a strategic and overarching partnership within a number of areas.

In Egypt, there is a large Christian minority, the Copts, who make up about 10 percent of the country's population and who are regularly subjected to attacks from Daish or other Islamist extremists. Egypt also plays an important role together with the USA, Qatar and other actors to negotiate a ceasefire.

Madam Speaker! Iraq and Syria are two other countries in the region that have been hit hard by war and conflicts in recent decades. Iraq's ethnic and religious minorities have been particularly hard hit during the conflict with Daish, and their traditional homelands in Iraq have been subjected to great destruction.

The Syrian crisis, which is in its 13th year, is the largest refugee crisis in the world. Over 12 million Syrians have been forced to leave their homes. The majority of the Syrian refugees are internally displaced persons or are located in Syria's neighboring countries such as Turkey and Lebanon, where the pressures on the local communities have been great. Very difficult economic conditions also prevail there. The impact of the pandemic, sanctions, inflation, and the severe earthquake just over a year ago have further complicated the humanitarian situation for Syria's hard-hit civilian population, both in Syria and in its surrounding areas.

Madam Speaker! The persecution of Christian minorities globally, but also in the region, is extensive. Christians are judged to be the world's most persecuted religious group. Open Doors' latest report points to 365 million Christians in the world who are subject to some form of religious oppression. In several countries in the Middle East, we see a very serious situation where the Christian population risks being gradually wiped out from their historical areas of origin. The oppression also takes ethno-religious forms, and fundamental human and civil rights are increasingly restricted for minorities such as Syrians, Assyrians, and Chaldeans. This also applies to Yazidis. The region has for centuries been home to a diversity of religious and ethnic groups. Several of the countries in the Middle East have been affected by war and conflicts.

The Christian minorities have lived and live in particular vulnerability and have, throughout history, been subjected to persecution, oppression, and genocide. This has led to an alarming decrease in the Middle East's Christian population. In Syria and Iraq, we see an almost 80 percent decrease in just the last 20 years. When Daish advanced in 2014, Mosul and the rest of the Nineveh Plain were emptied of their Christian population in a short time, and the church bells fell silent for the first time in 1,600 years.

Despite all this religious persecution, religious freedom has previously had an almost non-existent role in Swedish foreign policy and Swedish development cooperation. But we Christian Democrats have for a long time worked to ensure that religious freedom is prioritized in Swedish foreign and aid policy. Against this background, we are proud and happy that the government is now directing the aid to reduce the vulnerability of Christians and other religious minorities in the region.

In the government's foreign policy declaration, as well as in the reform agenda for aid and associated strategies, freedom of religion has been prioritized with clear formulations for freedom of religion and for the rights of religious minorities. In this region, which is characterized by many conflicts, Sweden should and shall act actively and decisively within the EU and the UN to combat poverty, oppression, and persecution and to promote peace and stability, human rights and democracy, as well as protection and security for the region's ethno-religious minorities.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johan Büser (S)

Madam Speaker! In August, a large number of Members of Parliament from the Christian Democrats traveled to Israel. The trip was arranged by KKL, an organization that is accused of financing illegal settlements on Palestinian land. During the trip, the KD delegation also met no representative from the Palestinian side, which is roughly what is customary when the right-wing parties travel in the region.

At the beginning of March, that is a few weeks ago, the IAF invited [them] to a conference in Israel where, among others, Member Aydin's colleague in the Foreign Affairs Committee, Magnus Berntsson, was present. Furthermore, the IAF supports the current Israeli so-called presence in the West Bank, and both trips have received media attention.

The Christian Democrats' travels are rightly meeting with extensive criticism. Helena Lindholm, professor of peace and development research at the University of Gothenburg and an expert on the Palestine conflict, is among those who are critical. She is particularly clear regarding the international law perspective that the West Bank is occupied by Israel and that the Christian Democrats as a party have a long tradition of not being particularly critical of the settlement movement and the Israeli right.

That is why I want to ask Member Yusuf Aydin how the member views the visit of party colleague Magnus Berntsson to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Can the member also say something about the Christian Democrats' approach to the settlements and the Israeli right?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Yusuf Aydin (KD)

Madam Speaker! I believe that my colleague Berntsson has addressed questions regarding the latest trip in a good and objective manner. He met, among other things, representatives from the government and the opposition, and he also visited a kibbutz - which was later attacked on October 7.

Our member took the floor and stated clearly that we do not support the settlement policy. Nor did he sign the statement that had been prepared. In this way, he clarified the party's position, which is also in line with what we have said previously. We see the settlements as an obstacle to peace in the region, and we have also said that we support the EU sanctions against extremist settlers in the West Bank. The settlements constitute an obstacle to peace and the two-state solution we want to see in the future.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johan Büser (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Aydin for the answer. I naturally welcome shifts in position, if that is what you are expressing here. As I mentioned in my speech, KD has historically not publicly expressed itself particularly critically towards the settlements or, in that regard, the Israeli right.

We have, during the development of the terrible war, nevertheless seen a shift in position, partly because we have pushed the government ahead of us when it comes to the demands for the immediate ceasefire and further the demands that the government should at least in writing more clearly express that it condemns the settlements. Now I also hear that from Member Aydin in the chamber. In that case, I welcome it.

I also noted yesterday at a meeting with the Palestinian ambassador that two members from Kristdemokraterna participated. It was the first time during my nearly ten years in the Riksdag that any of the four right-wing parties participated in such a context. I would welcome more parties from the Tidö parties to do something similar to get a broader perspective on the conflict, if one is serious about the words regarding a real two-state solution.

Madam Speaker! I welcome Aydin's words. I am, however, concerned about these trips and how it looks for Sweden's reputation when members participate in trips arranged by questionable organizations. I would therefore like to pose a concluding question to Member Aydin: Will you take the initiative in your party so that you will not carry out similar questionable trips in the future, which are also loudly criticized by researchers and experts in international law?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Yusuf Aydin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Many of my colleagues, together with myself, have had a great interest in the region, and we have previously made trips where visits were made to both Israel and places on the West Bank with the aim of gaining better knowledge about the complexity and the region. That is good.

I cannot comment on individual members' travels. But the travels that have been carried out, and my colleague's latest trip, have been addressed and clarified in the media. We make travels for the purpose of establishing contacts and to take part in what is happening there. We will also continue to monitor the developments. All parties must do that.

The shift and the clearer position have occurred based on the development that has been ongoing there and which in many ways is alarming. This concerns especially the humanitarian situation, the support that is paid out and the active measures that the government takes to increase access.

The major deficiency has been that access to Gaza has been too limited. The government is working on these issues on a larger scale.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank Yusuf Aydin for the speech.

I already heard in the speech that the member took a stand against the illegal Israeli settlements. That pleases me, and it was also clarified in the exchange of remarks.

I have the same reflections and questions as Johan Büser regarding the visits that have nevertheless taken place by representatives of the Christian Democrats. It was a large group of Members of Parliament who in August 2023 traveled to Israel and met representatives of the illegal activity, that is, the illegal settlements. They visited, among other places, Simcha Rothman, a representative of the extreme-nationalist Religious Zionist Party where Bezalel Smotrich is the party leader. He is one of the most right-wing politicians in the settlement movement.

If one says to be against the settler movement, why does one visit them and in that way legitimize them? It is an acknowledgment when one visits them. I cannot quite put this together. I would like to have a clarification as to why one makes these visits. It is strange.

Would it be okay to visit occupied Crimea and have contact with representatives of the occupying power there? I don't think the member would think so, but it is a bit the same thing.

I believe you have a job to do in the Christian Democrats regarding these visits, to clarify that you truly stand against the illegal settlements.

One also visited the organization Elad, which is also a settler organization that works with evicting Palestinians and taking over homes in Palestinian areas.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Yusuf Aydin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Now, I was not on this trip, so I will not be able to provide details on exactly which organizations they met. The member may be welcome to ask someone who was on the visit.

However, as I said earlier, many in Kristdemokraterna are warm supporters of Israel but are also very interested in the region and have been on similar visits there. During many trips, they have also visited various Palestinian areas and places in the West Bank. That is included, I would say, in the mandate and the interest that exists to make some trips there. Then I cannot answer questions about individual meetings or visits.

Our position, which our foreign policy spokesperson recently explained in the media, is that we do not in any way support the settlement policy. We see it as an obstacle for the region and for the two-state solution, which we see as the long-term sustainable solution to the conflict.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! I am glad that the member clearly distances themselves from the illegal Israeli settlements. I think that is a step in the right direction. But I still think it is a huge problem that one visits these illegal activities.

It is one thing to travel to the area and visit representatives of official Israel, for Palestine, and so on. I have also done that. But to visit these illegal settlements is to give them legitimacy. The settlements are a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. They are also considered a war crime by the International Criminal Court, so it is important to be clear here. The West Bank is occupied by Israel. That is the view of the entire international community, including the USA and Sweden.

I believe you will have to have an in-depth discussion within the party on how you will work with this issue going forward.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Yusuf Aydin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Again: I was not present at the visit. I cannot answer questions about details. However, I want to emphasize that a visit somewhere does not mean an approval or support in any way for a certain matter.

There may sometimes be parts of the program that we might not have done ourselves. The way we did it now, when my colleague clearly explained the party's position and, for example, did not sign the statement that had been prepared, was in line with the Christian Democrats' view of the settlements as an obstacle. Therefore, I would say that it has been in line with the party's stance otherwise.

But travels occur. They have for a long time, and it is something that is completely natural both from an interest perspective and from much of the politics that we have driven for the region.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Madam Speaker! Next week, the Executive Director of the World Food Programme will come to Sweden. It is, of course, an important visit.

The World Food Programme's picture is that on the order of 677,000 are now in a catastrophe situation with a risk of famine. If this continues until July, that figure will double, and then one has not included the action in Rafah that Netanyahu envisions.

The reason for the catastrophic humanitarian situation in Gaza is, of course, that a ceasefire cannot be achieved. A humanitarian ceasefire is necessary, and I assume that this is something that the Christian Democrats are prepared to push for. A humanitarian ceasefire is the prerequisite for organizations to enter, regardless of which organization we are talking about. We can allocate more funds, but the money will not arrive if they cannot get in and distribute it due to ongoing warfare.

Then we have the question of UNRWA as one of the central actors for being able to distribute aid. It is strange to hear that also the Christian Democrats, despite advocating for a two-state solution, want to preempt it and say that UNRWA should cease.

So the right to return will therefore already be decided by strangling UNRWA. Or do the Christian Democrats believe that UNHCR should be converted to also take on that mission so that the rules of the game are not changed?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Yusuf Aydin (KD)

Madam Speaker! When it comes to the humanitarian situation in Gaza, I believe we agree that the situation is acute. It is appalling, it is extensive, and it is on the brink of famine. Therefore, the government and the Christian Democrats have supported increased humanitarian efforts, and we are pushing for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire.

What I mentioned in the previous turn, which I believe does not always come across, is that the primary, initial problem has not been the money but the access. Not enough deliveries are coming in. That is, among other reasons, why the USA and some others have tried to get more food and other supplies in via aircraft, maritime transport, or in other ways.

As I mentioned in my speech, Sweden is working together with the EU and other like-minded countries to get Israel to allow more deliveries into Gaza. It is not enough; I agree.

Regarding UNRWA, it is something that I and my colleagues have criticized for a long time. It is a rather odd construction. We believe that UNHCR or other organizations within the UN and, for that matter, the World Food Programme could complement and, at a later stage, replace UNRWA.

It is not unique in the sense that we have a specific organization that takes care of all refugees from a certain population. Based on the shortcomings that exist and the points we have made previously, it is the long-term solution we want to see.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Madam Speaker! Fundamentally, one gives with one hand and takes with the other. To provide aid to organizations and say that one supports humanitarian efforts when the humanitarian aid does not reach its destination, when there is no one who can deliver it because one choked off the aid to UNRWA and blocked it in that way, is not to fully do what can be done to bring about an end to the humanitarian suffering, which is so appalling in Gaza.

It is argued that UNRWA is not a good organization, that it has existed for too long. But it is in 76 years that one has waited for a two-state solution. With a two-state solution in place, UNRWA is dissolved, for then that question has been resolved.

My question naturally becomes: Do the Christian Democrats not consider the right of return and UNRWA's mandate to be issues that need to be resolved in connection with a final solution to this conflict? There has previously been a position that the right of return is part of a negotiated solution. But this is obviously no longer an issue that the Christian Democrats consider needs to be handled, but it can simply be dissolved from the side of the international community.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Yusuf Aydin (KD)

Madam Speaker! When reports emerge of potential terror links or that employees have even participated in the terror attack, I believe it is completely reasonable, natural, and even necessary to pause the payments, which both Sida, the government, and many other countries did. Since then, investigations have been conducted, and we have received written assurances from UNRWA regarding increased transparency and increased controls. The payments have thus been resumed, which we support.

But again: The short-term problem with the humanitarian situation is not primarily money. When other organizations have received money in different ways, access has always been the most difficult problem. By short-term, we mean that UNRWA was needed, and we are therefore prepared to release the payments, which has also been done.

But in the long run, the mandate that UNRWA has needs to be taken over in different ways by other organizations within the UN. It is not reasonable that a single organization is dominant in this way, and it also creates a vulnerability when it, as in this case, does not function. I believe that it is also for the best of the Palestinian people that, in the long run, one tries to broaden the base to help the Palestinian refugees on site.

Our position is also, as said, that a negotiated two-state solution is the long-term sustainable path towards peace.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johan Büser (S)

Madam Speaker! Yousef, who is twelve years old, eats half a loaf of bread a day. We could read that in Expressen yesterday. He is one of all those people in Gaza who, due to the terrible situation caused by the war, suffer from a shortage of food, clean water, and other things needed to meet basic needs.

We see how the situation is worsening day by day. For some weeks, children have begun to starve to death, and almost every third child under two years old is now suffering from malnutrition, according to Unicef. Since Israel began the military operation after October 7, it is estimated that 13,000 children have died, and the official figure for the number of dead is well over 30,000. Unicef warns strongly that we will soon reach a situation of mass famine in Gaza.

At the same time, we hear how Israel's leader Benjamin Netanyahu says that a ground invasion in Rafah shall be carried out and that he will never accept any form of two-state solution. We also see that Hamas continues to hold hostages - all those who were taken prisoner after the heinous terror attack on October 7. One can ask: When is enough enough?

Madam Speaker! The Social Democratic Party's chairperson, Magdalena Andersson, put into words this week what many of us now feel. She said: That the situation prevailing in Gaza could have arisen in the first place is a stain on history.

Our international law, with its rights and obligations, must apply to everyone. We who can must now raise our voices for this. It applies regardless of whether you live in Ukraine, Iran, Israel, or Palestine. Many, even in our country, experience that the rules-based world order turned out to be applicable only to certain countries. The illusion of a world order worthy of the name fails in the eyes of many people. But Sweden shall not and must not contribute to the weight of silence that we see from certain sides regarding the situation in Gaza.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats have, since October 7, on repeated occasions met representatives from both Israel and Palestine. A few weeks ago, I personally visited the region, together with the Secretary General of the Olof Palme International Centre. We visited Jerusalem, Ramallah, and Tel Aviv. On-site, we met organizations from civil society that the Palme Centre works with. We met politicians from our sister parties on both sides. We met the Swedish representation on-site. We also met relatives of those who have been taken hostage by Hamas, and we met representatives for UNRWA.

That is how we Social Democrats do it when we visit the region. We ensure that we visit and contact both sides, in order to mark our presence and to avoid one-sidedness.

The trip naturally gave many impressions that are impossible to summarize here in the Riksdag's speaker's chair today. But the situation remains very bleak. In the shadow of the tragedy with the hostages and the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, the settler violence and the repression in the West Bank are increasing. Palmcentre's partner organizations from civil society could, through their own experiences, testify to the fear, the hopelessness, and the discomfort of suffering daily from the occupation of the West Bank, an occupation that continues with new illegal Israeli settlements.

We also met, as mentioned, representatives from the UN agency UNRWA, which since 1949 has been active in helping Palestinians obtain food, education, and community development. Now the needs in Gaza are greater than ever. UNRWA spoke about a very tough economic situation, after several countries decided to freeze their payments.

We Social Democrats have, as is well known, pushed hard for the Swedish right-wing government to resume aid to UNRWA, which has now also recently occurred according to an announcement from the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Just as Foreign Minister Tobias Billström said here in the chamber in the Riksdag's foreign policy debate recently, UNRWA is the only organization that has the capacity to provide Gaza's inhabitants with supplies.

Madam Speaker! As has been said, it is good that the support to UNRWA has been resumed, after we Social Democrats, together with the Left Party, the Green Party, and the Center Party, pushed the government forward in this. Now it remains for the government to also resume the Swedish development aid to Palestine, an aid that goes to civil society – to organizations that, among others, work with organizing women and young people and with contributing to social development and democracy and with stopping Hamas. We therefore expect that the announcement the government will make is that the Swedish development aid shall also be resumed. The necessities must immediately enter Gaza, and it is unacceptable that Israel delays and stops the transports in the way that is happening today.

Madam Speaker! As appears from my speech, our Social Democratic demands are very clear regarding the situation in Israel and Palestine. We demand an immediate ceasefire. We demand that those who have been taken as hostages by Hamas are released immediately, that the Swedish support to UNRWA is paid out quickly and that development aid is reinstated. We welcome the announcement that the EU is preparing sanctions against settlers.

Swedish Social Democracy has for a long time had a strong commitment to achieving a two-state solution, with the goal that both Israel and Palestine and their populations should be able to live in peace, freedom, and democracy. For the first time in a long time, more countries are speaking of the real need for a two-state solution worthy of the name. If we are serious about our work for the freedom of all peoples and the peace of the whole world, we have an obligation in our international work to continue working for a free Israel and a free Palestine.

Madam Speaker! We must also, by all means, stop the risks of a regional escalation of the war. We see the situation in the Red Sea, and we see how Iran supports destructive forces and dangerous movements such as the Houthi rebels, Hezbollah, and Hamas, and it does not end there. It has also been reported that Iran is believed to have had far advanced plans to murder Swedish Jews. A terror listing of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard, IRGC, is the only right thing, because they are obviously a security threat also outside Iran's borders.

In conclusion, I move for the approval of our reservations under point 7 and point 8 regarding development aid and aid to UNRWA, as well as the reservation under point 10 regarding Iran. It is therefore the reservations 9, 10 and 12.

(Applause)

(cont. § 9)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)