The situation in Israel and Palestine

Johan Büser (S)

Mr. Speaker! Today's report is actually about Israel and Palestine, but it is impossible to begin such a debate without mentioning anything about the situation in the Middle East as a whole. It is very serious. Not least the last few days have shown how quickly everything can escalate. After the bombings by the USA and Israel in Iran, we have seen a great war-like development where more countries are being drawn in and further countries risk being drawn in, in a region that is already very vulnerable. Lebanon, the Gulf states, and the entire security policy situation in the area are affected. And the risk of a regional spread is, as said, obvious.

That is why it is important that we stand firm in a principle that we in Sweden often say we defend: international law. Bombings that violate international law must be criticized regardless of whether they are carried out by the USA, Israel, or anyone else. But we must also say the obvious: Iran has for a long time violated precisely that international law. This has been done by financing terrorism, destabilizing the region, and causing enormous human suffering. Iran's regime has blood on its hands and has indiscriminately murdered its own population for decades up until our day. The Iranian people deserve democracy and freedom from the ayatollahs' oppression. But precisely because of that, we cannot have a selective international law. Either international law applies, or it is eroded for all of us.

Mr. Speaker! When we speak about the Middle East, we must speak about Gaza. The humanitarian situation there remains appalling. What is sometimes described as a ceasefire is, in practice, no ceasefire. Palestinian civilians are still being killed by Israel. Access for humanitarian aid is repeatedly restricted. Aid organizations testify that resources are running out and that they are being hindered in their work.

I want to be crystal clear here: Hamas is a terrorist organization. Hamas's attacks against Israeli civilians are completely unacceptable and must be condemned without reservation. Hamas bears a heavy responsibility for the suffering and for the fact that it is becoming harder to achieve peace.

The fight against terrorism does not, however, give Israel the right to commit abuses or violate international humanitarian law. It is precisely here that international law is tested – when emotions are strongest, when violence is worst, and when politics is most polarized.

In this situation, the Swedish government has made decisions that weaken international humanitarian work on the ground. Sweden has ended its support to UNRWA, which is the UN's aid organization for Palestinian refugees. UNRWA is one of the most important actors in providing education, healthcare, and essential support to millions of Palestinians. The support for the ecumenical accompaniment program in Palestine and Israel has also been terminated. This is an international civil society initiative where companions are on the ground to document abuses, accompany civilians in vulnerable areas, and contribute to an international presence.

When support for these actors is withdrawn in a situation where the violence in the West Bank is increasing sharply, it sends a problematic signal. If Sweden is serious about standing up for international law, civilian protection, and humanitarian support, it must also be reflected in the government's priorities.

Mr. Speaker! I want to mention a meeting I recently had with Breaking the Silence here in the Riksdag. It was a meeting with visiting Israeli soldiers who themselves have served in Gaza and in the West Bank. They told what they had experienced. Their stories were about orders and routines that lead to civilians being treated as threats, about houses being destroyed as so-called security measures, and about how the line between military operation and collective punishment is blurred. They described a reality where people are dehumanized, where the rule of law disappears, and where violence is normalized.

I raise this in today's debate here in the chamber for one reason. These are Israeli voices. These are soldiers who are saying: This cannot be the way forward. Their testimony reminds us that criticism of abuses is not an attack on Israel. Furthermore, the criticism comes from the country's own citizens and is a defense of the principles of the rule of law and international law.

While the world so often focuses on the major conflicts – on bombings and war headlines – something is happening now on the West Bank that risks becoming permanent. A gradual but clear shift towards annexation is occurring, towards permanent control, and towards the two-state solution, which we so often speak of, dying in practice.

Last year, Morgan Johansson and I visited the Masafer Yatta area. We visited the village of Umm al-Khair. There, people live under the threat of demolition and under systematic restrictions regarding access to water, electricity, and basic infrastructure. In that environment, settler violence, threats, and harassment occur. It is an everyday life characterized by fear.

I have personally stood at the place where the human rights activist Awdah Hathaleen was murdered. I met his family members. I saw the sorrow, the shock, and the anger, but I also saw a sense of resignation – a feeling that justice does not exist. The suspected perpetrator still goes free, even though it is known who he is and even though evidence exists.

It is here we must say it as it is: This is not about any individual extreme settlers that the state cannot control. What we see is a structure. The violence occurs with state protection – formal or informal – by being tolerated, by rarely being prosecuted, and by Palestinians being met by a system where they lack protection.

The word settlers actually leads the thought completely astray. What they are doing should instead be called terrorism against Palestinians, sanctioned by the state of Israel.

Mr. Speaker! This is happening at the same time as we see legislative changes and political decisions that pull the West Bank towards annexation. At the same time, the plans regarding the so-called E1 area continue or recur, which has previously been described as a red line because it risks cutting off territory and making a contiguous Palestinian state impossible.

It is in this situation that international law becomes decisive once again. The International Court of Justice ruled in 2024 that the settlement policy and the occupation violate international law. The Court said something that is central here: Other states have a duty not to recognize, not to assist, and not to participate in the illegal situation. The Court also pointed out that states must review their relations. It concerns trade, investments, and economic flows that contribute to maintaining the illegal situation. It is a Swedish responsibility.

That is why, in my interpellation on Tuesday, I held the Foreign Minister to account regarding what this means in practice for Sweden's actions. The government says that it supports the ICJ and international law. The government says in text that the settlements are illegal. The government also says that it is pushing for sanctions.

But what determines credibility is action. There is a major question here that the government must answer. In the Committee on Foreign Affairs, we received a report from the Cabinet Secretary, and here in the Chamber, we received a report from the Minister for Foreign Affairs last Tuesday that Sweden is no longer pushing for the EU to pause the trade agreement between the EU and Israel, even though the agreement contains a human rights clause. The EU has used that clause against many other countries – at least 15 – with significantly weaker grounds than illegal occupation and annexation policy.

At the same time, we see annexation legislation and planning on the ground. At the same time, settler violence is escalating. At the same time, villages such as Umm al-Khair are threatened with demolition and displacement. I am forced to conclude that Sweden, in this situation, is reducing the pressure and ignoring the obligations that Sweden has according to the international court ruling and international law.

Mr. Speaker! The Government often refers to the EU, but we know that central decisions are blocked by Orbán's Hungary. It is not leadership to hide behind EU processes that one knows do not deliver. The result, conveniently enough, is that Hungary gets to cast its veto and that this also becomes Sweden's foreign policy.

That is why I mean that one of the most central issues in this debate is about consequence. Should international law have practical consequences or not? If we say that international law applies when Russia violates it, we must also say that it applies when others violate it – otherwise, international law is just an argument that we bring out when it suits us.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden must be a country that defends international law, human rights, and a rules-based world order, not only in the speaker's chair but also in practice. That means we must use the tools that actually exist – political, diplomatic, and economic. Therefore, I want to conclude by making it clear where we stand.

If we are serious about the ICJ's advisory opinion and about not assisting the illegal situation, we cannot simultaneously reward the current development that Israel is responsible for with a continued contractual relationship with the EU without any consequences whatsoever. Therefore, I move finally for approval of the Socialdemokraterna, Vänsterpartiet, and Miljöpartiet's joint reservation 3 that the EU's association agreement with Israel shall be suspended until international law is respected.

(Applause)

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! In the Committee on Foreign Affairs' report 15 on Israel and Palestine, motions submitted during the general motion period are addressed. As appears from the report, it is proposed that all motions be rejected. I would like to move in this chamber for approval of the committee's proposed decisions in all parts.

Mr. Speaker! Only in the last few days has the war in the Middle East flared up again. It is like a glowing bed that never stops burning.

The committee's report primarily concerns the relationship between Israel and Palestine, but given Iran's involvement in this, it is impossible not to also comment on the developments of the past few days.

One must remind oneself why Hamas staged its large-scale attack against Israel on October 7, 2023. It was because they had for a long time received economic and military support from Iran. Without Iran's involvement, the terrorist attack could never have been carried out. The war in Gaza would then not have happened. The immense suffering of the Palestinian civilian population would never have had to occur.

The Iranian regime's bizarre hatred of Israel has for a long time been one of the most important driving forces behind Islamist terrorism. That Israel ultimately found it necessary to strike Iran with the help of the USA – already last year and now again – is fully understandable. What is now hitting the Iranian regime is something that it has itself paved the way for over a long period due to its own sick hatred of Israel.

Mr. Speaker! In the report, we primarily address three areas: the future of Gaza, the situation in the West Bank, and the humanitarian aid to those suffering in the area.

Regarding Gaza, the government has announced that it supports UN Security Council resolution 2803, which is a legal codification of the so-called Trump plan. At the current stage, this plan remains the best when it comes to outlining a peaceful future for Gaza's population. The core of the plan is that a new civil administration shall be installed which is to be Palestinian, while an international security force, with participation from many different countries, takes over the responsibility for security from the Israeli forces.

The plan also builds on Hamas disbanding itself. Hamas still controls parts of the Gaza Strip, and as long as the terrorist organization continues with its meaningless struggle, there will be no peace for the people of Gaza.

There were reasons to be critical of how Israel conducted the war when it was at its most intense, but with the UN-mandated peace plan, there is a completely peaceful path to take, which Israel has accepted.

Unfortunately, it seems however that the American presidential administration is playing away its own peace plan by instead creating a so-called peace council with much greater ambitions than what was originally the intention and what the UN Security Council has stood behind. That the administration is playing away its own cards in this way is surprising because the plan, which was still a reasonable plan in that case, cannot be implemented. Sweden has said that we want to support the original plan. It was focused on Gaza and not the world at large.

Mr. Speaker! We have spoken a lot about Gaza in this chamber, but those who know the nature of the conflict know that it is actually the issues in the West Bank that are the big question. The Israelis call the West Bank Samaria and Judea, which are the old biblical names. It is said this way to mark that this is the core area of the old biblical Israel. It is this that is the very reason why Israel has built settlements there.

The settlements began long before our time, already after the war in 1967. The leading party at that time was Israel's social democratic party. The world should have already said no back then and insisted on a partition between the Palestinian and Israeli peoples. Even then, a two-state solution should have been required.

Soon 60 years later, the situation is more complicated than ever, and today the settlement policy is driven by religious extremists with the support of Israel's government. Not having stopped the settlement policy and the violent extremism it stands for is Israel's stain, and not even the warmest Israel-friend can defend that policy.

Sweden continues to support the idea that a two-state solution must be achieved. There are many who no longer believe in it because it seems that neither Israelis nor Palestinians want it. No one has, however, presented a more realistic alternative. All proposals for one-state solutions that I have become aware of end in displacement of people and very great human suffering. They are all unrealistic.

To mark our dissatisfaction with the Israeli settlement policy, the government is working for the EU to ensure that goods produced within settlements do not reach European consumers. The government is working for the EU to target sanctions against extremist settlers and also against ministers in Israel's government.

Mr. Speaker! The third part of the report concerns the humanitarian situation. Here, I would like to briefly remind what the Swedish government has done and why we in the committee are satisfied with this.

Sweden is one of the larger donors of humanitarian aid, primarily to Gaza. Since the war broke out in 2023, Sweden has donated 1.5 billion SEK in humanitarian aid, of which 945 million SEK was during 2025. In addition, we plan to pay out a further 800 million SEK during the current year. The money is, to a greater extent than before, directed specifically to Gaza through established aid organizations such as Unicef, World Food Programme, and the International Committee of the Red Cross.

(Applause)

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

Johan Büser (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Olsson, for your speech! I appreciate that you mentioned both Iran and the struggle for democracy there and, of course, also the opposition to Hamas. You also said very clearly that the settlement policy is a stain on Israel. I agree with that.

I would like to return to what I spoke about in my previous speech. It concerns the interpellation debate that I had here with Foreign Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard a couple of days ago. There, I received a clear statement on the government's line when it comes to the settlements. On one hand, it is said that one stands behind the ICJ's advisory opinion, where the settlements are condemned, but one does not push for the EU to use the human rights clause in the trade and association agreement with Israel so that it also has consequences. We have heard from the Cabinet Secretary that Sweden no longer stands behind what was previously pushed.

At the same time, we see how the annexation legislation in Israel is moving forward. The settlement expansion continues, and the E1 plans risk killing a two-state solution completely. The trade and association agreement with the EU is therefore not a detail issue, but it is one of the most concrete leverage points the EU has at its disposal.

My question to Member Olsson is therefore: Does the Member truly believe that it is good that the government has pivoted on the trade and association agreement? If so, why does the Member think so? How does one justify, in terms of international law and politics, that trade and contractual relations can continue as usual while the International Court of Justice says that states, including Sweden, have an obligation not to assist in an illegal situation on occupied territory?

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! As I understand it, the question of whether we can use the association agreement as a means of pressure on Israel is not deleted at all, but it is still on the table of the EU and can be used.

I agree that it is a tool that can be used. The question is rather how it should be used. As I perceive it, the Social Democrats want that people should say right now that the agreement should be paused, but if one does that and it still has no effect on Israel's way of behaving, one has no tool to resort to.

It is better to have a dialogue with Israel and consistently point out that if the unreasonable settlement policy continues, the association agreement will be paused. The question is simply when to fire the weapon. I understand that the Social Democrats want the weapon to be fired already, but I am not sure that it will have the expected effect.

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

Johan Büser (S)

Mr. Speaker! I think the situation is incredibly clear. Ever since the plan for the 1967 borders was adopted, Palestine has shrunk and shrunk in a state of settlements, terrorism, and displacement of people.

As early as 2014, the Social Democratic government recognized Palestine in order to accelerate the two-state solution. We have strongly signaled against the settlements that have been ongoing for many years now, but despite this, it has only continued and continued. We do not see that the current policy that both the EU and Sweden have is putting any pressure on Israel. Here, we argue that a pausing of the association and trade agreements would be the clearest way to put pressure on Israel.

What is now on the table is a decision regarding the so-called E1 area, which splits the West Bank in half. Many observers say that if one proceeds with it, as the Israeli government now proposes, yes, then we can forget a Palestinian state. We can forget a two-state solution.

I believe – I am actually even convinced – that we should join forces, Social Democrats and Moderates, to ensure that we put pressure on Israel now. I regret the message that the Foreign Minister gave earlier this week that one is no longer prepared to pressure Israel in that way. It is truly at the eleventh hour, and if we want a two-state solution, we must put pressure on Israel. We do that best by pausing the association and trade agreements with Israel.

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I actually do not think there is such a large difference between the Social Democrats and the Moderates on this point as this debate may give the impression of.

The question is whether the tool that MP Büser wants the government to use, namely to pause the EU's association agreement, will be effective or not. I understand that the MP means that it is a very effective tool to use and that it will be effective.

I am not quite as sure about that because a decision in the EU is also required and we know that it is very difficult to achieve this. If we pursue Buser's line here, it could unfortunately become a shot in the air. There will be no effect at all, and Israel does not want to change at all because of this. That is the dilemma. I share Buser's view that one can use this instrument, but I am not entirely convinced that it is as effective as he believes it to be.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! A bed of glowing embers that never stops burning, Stefan Olsson said about the Middle East, if I understood correctly. I must say that is a very negative way to describe the Middle East. Even though one can see many hotspots there, there are surely many people who actually want to live in peace and freedom in the Middle East as well. I can feel that we Swedish politicians must have some hope that it actually can become just peace.

Mr. Speaker! I intended to ask about international law and the double standards that I perceive the government is about to create by having the rest of the world perceive it that way.

I experience that when it comes to Ukraine, the government together with all parties here in the Riksdag is very clear about how Russia violates international law. When it comes to Gaza, we had extensive discussions about the statements the government made regarding Israel's right to defend itself against Hamas, the results of which we now see in the form of Gaza having been transformed into a pile of rubble with no buildings remaining standing and Israel being indicted for genocide in the International Court of Justice – a crime I believe has been committed.

Now we come to Iran, and then Member Olsson says that it is fully understandable that Israel attacks Iran.

I agree with the description of Iran. We had a very interesting interpellation debate about Iran in January this year, where we all agreed on what a cruel dictator Ayatollah Khamenei was and what a cruel rule the mullahs' regime is. But is it really fully understandable that Israel and the USA attack Iran and set the region on fire?

Iran's response is also in conflict with international law; I will be clear about that. One cannot attack its neighboring countries in the way it does. But I still find it a bit difficult to accept that it should be fully understandable. I think it is important that Sweden as a country stands up for international law and is clear that one must not attack other countries.

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! This report is about the relationship between Israel and Palestine and not about Iran. But since the member asked a question, I shall try to answer it.

The part of international law that we are talking about is the UN Charter. International law also includes other conventions. But it has been known for many decades that the UN Charter has a problem, and that is when large violations of human rights occur within a country or when something that resembles war but is almost not war begins, that is, when one sponsors terrorism – when a country sponsors terrorism in other countries. Is it then permissible to intervene against this country with the help of the UN Charter?

It is unfortunately the case that the UN Charter does not say anything about this. That is why we have had discussions for several decades about, for example, the genocides in Rwanda and Srebrenica and so on. How are we to proceed?

There are therefore examples of interventions where the international community has stepped in, for example when several countries gathered against Serbia to stop a genocide in Kosovo. This is a problem, and there is actually no good international law legal solution to this.

I cannot say that I think Israel and the USA have acted correctly in terms of international law here. I have more understanding for Israel's actions than for the USA's. On the other hand, Israel has the right to seek help from allies, and the USA is an ally.

I therefore agree with the member that it is a gray area in international law. But for that reason, I can also say that I can understand why they do it. I can understand the moral purpose.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! As I understand it, in any case, the Swedish experts are very clear that one violates international law from the side of Israel and the USA when one attacks Iran. But they are also clear that Iran violates international law by attacking all possible neighboring countries that in no way have carried out any form of attack or aggression against Iran.

I share Member Olsson's description of the horrific massacre that the Iranian regime committed during the month of January. They massacred 40,000, perhaps up to 50,000, Iranians because they demonstrated for freedom and democracy. It is a crime that we have discussed here. We have also pushed forward in the EU to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as terrorists, which I see as our common victory here in the Swedish Riksdag.

I think it is interesting to note that Trump's motives for these attacks are extremely unclear. I have not seen any clear motives from Benjamin Netanyahu either. Many different motives are stated in any case, but the Iranian people seem to come a bit lower down on the priority list – in any case on the American one. That in itself is regrettable.

Then we have organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah, which have been pushed back and which have posed a threat to Israel. That must absolutely be acknowledged. But one must also be clear that, according to international law, militaries are allowed to attack militaries or attack terrorists if they belong to a terrorist organization. But here, civilians have suffered very greatly, both in Gaza and in Lebanon but also in many other countries.

If one looks at the entire list, not only at how many countries Iran has attacked but also at how many countries Israel has attacked during recent years, one might still arrive at the conclusion that Member Olsson draws – that it is a powder keg that never stops burning. But I believe that in practice, it is Benjamin Netanyahu on Israel's side and Khamenei, who is now finally dead, on Iran's side who have been responsible for many of the attacks that have created this powder keg.

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I will content myself with commenting on this matter regarding the tinderbox. No, it is not Israel or Iran that is responsible for this entire tinderbox. The entire civil war in Syria was not caused by Israel, one could say. I will content myself with that.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I had not initially intended to take any words from Member Olsson today, but there was one thing he said that nevertheless caught my interest and which I shall return to shortly.

First, we should just talk about this matter of Iran's enabling of the attacks on October 7. It is very true that Iran paid Hamas quite a lot and supported them with weapons and so on. There was, however, also another side that also supported Hamas, and that is Qatar. They were constantly paying money to Hamas with Israel's good memory. They even asked the Israeli government in September 2023: Do you want us to continue paying money to Hamas? And Netanyahu said yes, we do.

So there was also support from the Israeli side to ensure that Hamas remained. The idea was to ensure that Hamas was strong enough to rule Gaza but weak enough to be controllable by Israel. One must also see that there is a certain nuance when it comes to the idea that it was only Iran that supported Hamas before the horrific attacks that took place on October 7.

The point that MP Olsson raised and which I caught was that he said Sweden is working within the EU to ensure that trade in settlement goods is not allowed. Previously, we have only heard that one supports Belgium's proposal to investigate whether they are legal or not. It is very interesting to hear that one is now pursuing this line.

There are EU countries that have taken the lead and themselves chosen to abolish the import of Israeli settler goods. Why can't Sweden do that? Why must it be done via the EU? We all know that these decisions are being slowed down in the EU by, among other things, Hungary.

I would like to know if the government cannot instead drive this and start taking the lead and show that we are serious about this and stop the settler goods.

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Now, I do not represent the government. I represent the Moderaterna in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and we stand behind the government's policy.

The question that is relevant here is then whether the Moderaterna are satisfied with the government's actions in this area – and it concerns precisely that Belgian initiative, which we support. This is stated in the committee's report.

The member proposes that Sweden itself should introduce a corresponding rule and asks me if the government is willing to do this. However, I cannot answer that question, as I am not the government.

I would recommend the member to submit an interpellation in the matter to the responsible minister.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Olsson, for the answer! I can take the opportunity to ask if this is something that the Moderaterna would like to see on the ground, that is, that we ourselves put a stop to settler goods. Now I am not posing the question to the government anymore, but I am posing it instead to the Moderaterna.

In another exchange, it was about the suspension of the association agreement, and then Member Olsson meant that one no longer has any tools if one has indeed suspended it. There are plenty of tools against Israel! Among other things, one could even threaten a total stop of trade. It is the case that Israel is significantly more dependent on the EU when it comes to trade than the EU is on Israel.

We also know that these are things that can have an effect, because economic instruments are almost the only thing that has helped when it comes to getting Israel to do anything at all.

We remember how it looked at the end of the 80s and in the beginning of the 90s when George Bush the elder was president in the USA. The Israelis refused then to sit down and negotiate with the PLO and said: the PLO is a terrorist organization, and we do not negotiate with terrorist organizations.

George Bush the Elder said then that the USA would withhold the annual support of 10 billion dollars to Israel's military. The day after that, they sat down and negotiated with the PLO. With economic measures, it has been possible to get Israel to change its mind, but today they refuse to use these economic measures. Why, I wonder! There are several tools in the toolbox, so this is absolutely not the last.

A year ago, when the government pivoted on the suspension, I asked the Foreign Minister if the situation on the West Bank is also sufficient reason to pause the association agreement, given the MR crimes committed there. At that time, the Foreign Minister said yes, it is.

But even though the situation at Västbanken is significantly worse today than a year ago, that no longer applies. What I would actually like to know is: Why can the Moderaterna not push to pause this now?

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The member asked many questions. I shall try to answer them.

When it comes to why we mostly want to work through the EU and not have different types of national sanction regimes, it is because we are a party that believes it is the EU's trade policy that is Sweden's strength. I cannot think of a single occasion where the Moderaterna have said that we should have our own trade policy guidelines.

I can, of course, take that question to my party, but I am quite sure that it will be a no there. It probably will not be so. We want to conduct trade policy within the EU.

The member also had proposals that there should be a total boycott of all Israeli trade, i.e., a total freezing out of Israel on this point. However, that is not the Moderates' policy. We have quite good confidence that one can speak with a democratic state and that continued dialogue with Israel through the EU is possible, even when it comes to the West Bank and the settlement policy. We believe that this can actually have an effect, even if member Risberg does not believe so.

The member then took the USA and George Bush as an example. I do not know the history as well as Risberg, but he says that economic pressure worked then. I must tell the member that there is some difference between the USA and Sweden in economic strength. The USA is, after all, a very large country, and having trade problems with the USA is significantly worse than having trade problems with Sweden.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Few issues are as well-debated in the Swedish Riksdag as Israel's occupation of Palestine. This is because the occupation has lasted so long. Already in 1948, the first displacement of Palestinians from their homes was carried out in what is called al-nakba, and since 1967, Israel has occupied the Palestinian territories. What we are debating today is therefore an issue that has deep roots.

At the same time, the occupation has for a long time been a clear dividing line in Swedish politics. I usually call it "the foreign policy mother" in Swedish politics and for the political conflict between left and right. This means that the tone often becomes high – sometimes perhaps a bit too high – however, rarely in this chamber. It will likely become clear in today's debate that we do not quite share the same worldview and thereby make different analyses of the same events.

Something I think is very good and clarifies the difference between left and right in this debate is that there is unity in the opposition. Vänsterpartiet, Socialdemokraterna and Miljöpartiet are today in agreement on all our demands.

It also clearly shows the voters that Sweden's policy towards Israel and Palestine will once again impact the path of international law and international humanitarian law when we take power on September 13. We call a spade a spade, and we never back down when it comes to criticizing violations of international law, regardless of whether it is Hamas or Israel committing the crimes.

A little later in this debate, my colleague Lotta Johnsson Fornarve will speak about the aid policy aspects of Israel's occupation of Palestine, but I have intended to focus on the more foreign policy aspects.

The root of all problems is Israel's occupation of Palestine. It is an imperialist policy that has characterized Israeli politics for decades and which is now, under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, experiencing a kind of crescendo, as he attacks everything and everyone.

It would therefore be better for the world if the International Criminal Court got what it wants in the arrest warrant which says that Netanyahu should end up behind bars – or for that matter that the trial currently underway regarding the three cases of extensive corruption for which Netanyahu is indicted in Israel can be completed and that he ends up in prison there. By hanging on as prime minister, Netanyahu has been able to block this trial from proceeding.

Mr. Speaker! One reason why Israel's occupation of Palestine can continue year after year is the rest of the world's extensive trade with and support for Israel. War is expensive, and occupation is expensive, but as long as Israeli politicians are kept warm through trade agreements and favorable conditions – or for that matter Eurovision – the pressure will never become strong enough for the occupation to end.

Israel's government will continue to time and again violate countries' territorial integrity and international law. This the apartheid regime in South Africa has already taught us through history, and therefore we must – just as we did when it concerned South Africa – put maximum pressure on Israel so that they end the occupation.

Listen now, Mr. Olsson! The EU is Israel's largest trading partner. A third of all exports from Israel go to the EU, which means we are larger than the USA in that area. The cooperation between the EU and Israel is extensive and gives the EU the opportunity to pressure Israel to respect international law, but then we must also dare to use our tools.

The EU's association agreement with Israel includes favorable trade agreements that provide the Israeli business community with great economic advantages. In this way, the EU contributes to strengthening the economic base for the occupation policy and thereby legitimizing the ongoing attacks. Israel should not enjoy duty-free status and other privileges, and Sweden should actively push within the EU for the union to immediately suspend the current association agreement with Israel.

To do this, the Left Party, together with its sister parties in Europe, has carried out a campaign to collect signatures for a citizens' initiative to stop the EU's trade agreement with Israel. The campaign has collected half a million signatures in a very short time, of which 15,000 signatures come from Sweden. This citizens' initiative now forces the European Commission to take up the issue of stopping the EU's trade agreement with Israel.

Mr. Speaker! Last week we debated trade policy here in the Riksdag, and then I raised the EU's lack of a comprehensive trade agreement with Palestine. Palestine's trade is hindered today by Israeli checkpoints and walls, and thereby the Palestinian economy is never allowed to grow in export markets.

The Palestinian state is also undermined by Israel withholding the Palestinian customs duties and taxes that they collect on behalf of Palestine in accordance with the Oslo Accords. Through this action, Israel stops the funding of the Palestinian welfare, which undermines the formation of the Palestinian state. Sweden must demand that Israel follows its commitments and pays out the Palestinian customs duties and taxes.

It is clear that the occupying power Israel's goal is to keep the Palestinian economy down and as small as possible. This contributes to an imbalance between the parties where Israel always has the upper hand in all negotiations with Palestine. We cannot allow this, but we must strengthen the Palestinian party and contribute to economic development in the region.

Mr. Speaker! At the same time as the war rages in Gaza, violent attacks from settlers have increased in the West Bank. Every day, new reports arrive that olive groves have been razed, that livestock has been stolen, that cars have burned, or that shots have been fired against unarmed civilians.

I wanted to bring up a short period, namely the two weeks between February 3 and February 16 this year. During that time, the UN body OCHA documented at least 86 attacks by Israeli settlers against Palestinians in 60 different communities – attacks that resulted in fatalities, property damage, or both. These incidents led to 146 people being displaced from their homes and 64 Palestinians, including one child, being injured. 59 of the injured were harmed by settlers, and 5 were harmed by Israeli military forces.

During the same two-week period, Israeli forces killed three Palestinians in the West Bank and in eastern Jerusalem. This means that the total number of Palestinians killed by Israeli forces since January 1, 2026, amounts to nine people, including two children. Palestinian security forces killed a Palestinian child and injured his sister when they attempted to arrest the children's father, who was also shot and injured. In total, 1,059 Palestinians have been killed in the West Bank during the last two and a half years, and to that figure we can add all the horrific killing in Gaza.

The International Court of Justice has already ruled that Israel's settlement policy and actions in the occupied territories violate international law. We demand that the occupation of Palestinian land and Israel's internationally illegal settlement policy cease immediately.

In May 2025, Israel approved the establishment of 22 new settlements on occupied land, and in August 2025, Israel gave the green light to the so-called E1 plan. It would divide the West Bank into a northern and a southern part and further cut off eastern Jerusalem, which would drastically complicate a peaceful two-state solution.

The settlements constitute a clear violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and are identified by the ICC as a war crime. Sweden must act forcefully to prevent new Israeli settlements from being added to Palestinian land and to ensure that existing settlements are dismantled immediately. The EU's sanctions against the militant settlement movement must be expanded. Today, the sanctions are far too weak.

Mr. Speaker! In connection with this debate, we in the opposition present a new concrete proposal for a measure that Sweden can take without the proposal being blocked by other EU countries. It concerns the fact that goods from Israeli settlements shall not be able to be sold here in Sweden. We further propose that Israeli settlers shall not have visa-free access to Sweden and the EU.

Ireland is about to introduce legislation against trade with goods from Israeli settlements, and in other countries, similar processes are underway to avoid contributing to the financing of illegal militant settlements. We in the opposition believe that Sweden should do the same, but the Swedish government's weakness shows itself time and again – they never want to proceed with powerful measures against Israel.

By claiming that buildings and plantations are unauthorized or that they stand too close to the wall or Israeli settlements, Israel justifies the destruction of Palestinian houses and schools, as well as of infrastructure and cultivated land in the West Bank. Many of those affected are refugees from before, and the demolitions are in direct conflict with the Fourth Geneva Convention. Many times, it is schools and health centers that have been paid for with Swedish aid funds that are demolished.

In recent months, we have seen how the Israeli government has once again intensified the demolitions, which often occur with the help of Volvo machines, and among other things, demolished the buildings of the UN agency UNRWA. Sweden should take the initiative within the UN and the EU to stop the demolition of Palestinian buildings, UN buildings, infrastructure, and means of livelihood. The families and communities that have been affected must receive compensation now.

Mr. Speaker! Like many others in this debate, I would like to say a few words about Iran and the situation in the Middle East in general, even though the topic lies somewhat on the periphery of this debate.

We in Vänsterpartiet are clear that we stand on the side of the Iranian people. They demand democracy and freedom and have many times risen in protest against the regime with their demands, which has always been met with brutal violence from the regime. Most recently, it happened at the beginning of this year: When millions of Iranians took to the streets in protest on January 8 and 9, the regime responded with unparalleled violence. Up to 40,000 people may have been murdered during 48 hours. It is one of our time's absolute worst massacres and a crime against international law.

I am proud of the interpellation debate we had here in the Swedish Riksdag in January and the strong support that exists to designate the IRGC as a terrorist organization. The Iranian people have suffered enough.

The attacks by the USA and Israel are, however, not compatible with international law, nor is Iran's response, which affects the civilian population in other countries in the region. International law aims to protect states from the arbitrary exercise of power by superpowers, and therefore it is important to defend and uphold international law.

International law is also about protecting the civilian population from acts of war and violations of human rights in all circumstances. Every time countries take the liberty to act in defiance of international law, its value as a protection for individuals and smaller states is eroded, and it therefore cannot be accepted.

The people of Iran have a right to a future in peace and freedom. Now, de-escalation is needed, and diplomacy must take over. Measures must also be taken immediately to protect the civilian population. The regime in Iran must give way to a democratic development, and the military attacks must cease. Now, the Iranian people must be given freedom.

Mr. Speaker! With that, I move for approval of reservation 6 regarding the Israeli settlement movement.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! At the beginning of this week, Purim was celebrated in Israel. The holiday recalls the story in the Book of Esther about how Jews in the Persian Empire of that time were threatened with extermination but were ultimately saved. It is a story from history, from another time, but it contains a reminder that feels strangely relevant.

In the country that was once called Persia, today's Iran, there is today a regime whose leadership repeatedly speaks of that Israel must cease to exist. This very regime also finances and arms the groups that drive the conflicts in the region forward: Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthi movement in Yemen.

When we today discuss the situation between Israel and Palestine, we therefore need to dare to see and speak about also the larger context. Much of the instability in the Middle East indeed begins with what can rightly be described as the head of the snake: the Iranian regime.

The terror attack against Israel on October 7, 2023, was a brutal reminder of what this ideology leads to in practice. Civilians were murdered brutally and in cold blood. People were kidnapped. It was an attack aimed at creating maximum fear and maximum destabilization.

Iran's strategy does not only affect Israel. It affects the entire region.

Hamas' rule in Gaza has for many years meant a society where resources have gone to rockets and tunnels instead of schools, healthcare and development.

The Houthi movement's attacks in the Red Sea threaten international trade and shipping.

Hezbollah transformed Lebanon into a country where an armed militia has stood above the state. Today, a growing despair is also heard in Lebanon, not least among many Shia Muslims, over the fact that Hezbollah is once again throwing the country into war through its missile attacks against northern Israel, instructed by men from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard who are on site, sent by Iran. For more and more people, it is now clear that the organization does not act for Lebanon's sake but serves the interests of the Iranian regime.

That is why it is difficult to speak seriously about peace in the Middle East without also speaking about Iran.

Mr. Speaker! Amidst all this, we must not forget the very difficult humanitarian situation that civilians in Gaza are living in. Civilians have been hit hard by the war. Children, families, and the elderly are living under very difficult conditions. Humanitarian aid must get through, and international humanitarian law must be respected by all parties, including Israel.

We must simultaneously be clear that Hamas bears a decisive responsibility for the tragedy that has unfolded in Gaza. The organization has for a long time built up its military infrastructure in the middle of civilian areas. Weapons depots have been placed in residential areas, in schools and near hospitals. Civilians have been used as human shields. It has made the conflict even more tragic. If we are serious about a peaceful future for Gaza, Hamas cannot have a role in Gaza's future governance.

A fragile ceasefire now prevails in Gaza, and the implementation of the second phase of the peace plan to create a new order in Gaza is underway. After the hostages have been released, the focus is now on stabilizing the situation, ensuring adequate and permanent humanitarian support, and laying the foundation for a civilian Palestinian rule in Gaza without Hamas.

The ambition is, in the long run, to enable a comprehensive reconstruction and create more long-term stability. For such a process to succeed, a broad regional commitment is also required. The Gulf states will play a decisive role, both politically and economically, in the work of rebuilding Gaza and supporting new civilian structures.

The regional normalization processes that have been initiated through the Abraham Accords also show that there is a possibility for a new regional cooperation where more Arab countries develop relations with Israel. If these processes can continue and be deepened, they can contribute to a more stable regional framework for peace and development.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden's position must be clear. Israel has the right to exist and the right to defend itself against terrorism. At the same time, all military actions must take place within the framework of international law and with the greatest possible consideration for civilians.

In the longer term, we need to continue to strive for a sustainable solution. And there is no better alternative than two states living side by side in peace and security – a democratic and secure Israel and a future democratic Palestinian rule of law with functioning institutions that take into account Israel's legitimate security needs.

It is also important to be clear that the developments in the West Bank cause great concern. Violence from extremist settlers against Palestinian civilians is unacceptable and must be condemned. That type of actions undermines the principles of the rule of law and risks further exacerbating an already very tense situation.

It is obvious that the continued expansion of settlements on occupied land hinders the possibilities for a negotiated two-state solution. If we are serious about a future where Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side in peace and security, such actions must also be clearly countered. Extremism, regardless of which side it comes from, constitutes obstacles that take us further away from peace.

Mr. Speaker! The EU and its member states need to contribute to humanitarian aid and to reconstruction but also need to stand up clearly against terrorism and the actors who systematically undermine stability in the region. To counter Iran's destabilizing role is therefore not just a side issue. It is the very question. Peace in the Middle East begins where the discord has its origin: at the head of the snake – the Iranian regime.

I wish to vote in favor of the proposal in the committee's report in its entirety.

(Applause)

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

Johan Büser (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Member Berntsson!

I would like to ask the member a question regarding the credibility of the issues we are discussing today.

Member Stefan Olsson from Moderaterna previously spoke about how Israel's settlements are a stain. Member Berntsson also raised this at the end of his speech.

The Christian Democrats are part of the government base and say that they stand up for international law. The government says that the settlements are illegal and that the illegal situation shall not be supported or recognized.

I want to bring up KD's history on the issue. I do not think it is impressive. A number of years ago, the former Christian Democrat Sara Skyttedal posed with the party leader Ebba Busch in front of an Israeli military vehicle, despite decades of Israeli occupation. In the present, in the midst of a burning war where women and children and tens of thousands of civilians have died, the party leader Ebba Busch has said that Israel is doing the whole world a favor.

Finally, regarding settlements: The Christian Democrats' group leader in the Riksdag, Camilla Brodin, posted a picture on Facebook with a bottle of wine from occupied land, which was clear in the post. She also wrote: Finally Friday! It was thus a product from just occupied territory. There, international law is very clear, and the EU has signaled.

My questions to Member Berntsson are: How does this align with the Christian Democrats' and the government's talk about international law? Does Member Berntsson think it is appropriate to market products from occupied territory on the group leader's Facebook account?

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank Member Büser for the questions. I believe we are a very credible party that dares to tackle the situation in Iran while simultaneously seeing its influence and impact on the entire situation in Israel and in Palestine. In that regard, I think Member Büser's party has been much quieter for a very long time. I do not mean the last few weeks, because now one has started to be clear. But especially during its time in government, one was very quiet when the situation in Iran was discussed. I do not think that is particularly credible.

Johan Büser listed a number of contexts. I may not entirely agree with the description of those contexts. I do not think it is reasonable to only mention that my party leader said that Israel is doing the world a service and end with those words, because there was an extension. It was about the fact that something has actually been done regarding the terrorist organization Hamas. That was what the question was about.

Therefore, my counter-questions to Member Büser are: Does the Member think that one should have let Hamas continue with its terror attacks? Should this not have been handled by the side that was attacked, that is, the Israeli side?

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

Johan Büser (S)

Mr. Speaker! I was extremely clear in my contribution regarding both Hamas and the joy of getting rid of the Iranian regime, which has terrorized its population for many years. There is no doubt about where the Social Democrats stand, whether in the question of Hamas or regarding the view on the Iranian regime.

My question, however, was not about Hamas, Gaza or Iran. The question I asked was about the West Bank and Palestine and about the Christian Democrats' credibility in the matter of criticizing settlements in the West Bank.

It is regrettable, I think, that the party leader has posed in front of Israeli military vehicles despite decades of illegal occupation and that she, during an ongoing war, made the statement that Israel is doing the whole world a favor. A party leader knows very well how words are weighed, and she chooses to say this at the same time as the state of Israel is accused of genocide.

I also think it is regrettable that Camilla Brodin, the Kristdemokraterna group leader here in the Riksdag, posted a picture of a bottle of wine from occupied territory. This was not something that Member of Parliament Berntsson answered or commented on in his reply.

But I am changing perspective. I would like to bring up the situation of the Christian Palestinians in Taybeh. I visited a brewery there. The people I met told and testified about a very difficult situation. Israeli settlers had burned down their church and attacked a multi-year cultural heritage and were now in the process of taking their land. I think this is something that we must react to with emphasis in the Swedish Riksdag.

There is a time for atonement. There is a time for improvement. I hope that the Christian Democrats from now on will clearly stand up for international law throughout the world.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Büser for the follow-up question. I believe I was very clear on how I view the settlement policy that Israel pursues. It is very clear that the continued expansion of settlements is a clear obstacle to peace. I agree with Member Büsers' words regarding the current situation with the settlement expansion concerning E1. It is more serious than many others because it is in the process of dividing the West Bank into two parts, which makes the situation much more difficult.

I am also very clear that the settlement situation must be resolved through a negotiated two-state solution that allows the two states to live side by side under secure conditions. One needs to move away from the idea that it is extremists who are driving the development, which is also one of the reasons why the government has pushed very clearly for even extreme settlement ministers to be placed on the EU's sanctions list. I think we are driving that issue very clearly, and I have nothing further to say at this moment.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Berntsson for the speech and can agree with much of what was said. However, there is a mantra that keeps recurring and which I can fundamentally agree with, but which I would like to have clarified a bit more. It is not always good when other countries interfere in how a certain country should be governed. What I am referring to is this matter of Hamas not being able to have a part in a future government of Palestine. I can sympathize with that. But at the same time, I must compare it with the successful peace negotiations in, for example, Northern Ireland, where IRA's Sinn Féin, that is, the political wing, definitely got to be at the table and furthermore got to be involved in the governance. The same applies to the Farc guerrillas in Colombia.

Completely excluding them can work. But what I wonder is exactly what you mean, Magnus Berntsson. Which ones in Hamas are you referring to? Is it that everyone who in some way has worked for Hamas should not be allowed to be part of a future government? Does it apply to the police force? Does it apply to those who have worked for the Ministry of Health? Does it apply to those who have worked as doctors for Hamas? Does it apply to other administrative staff? Which ones are you referring to?

If you can now categorically say that Hamas cannot be part of a future government of Palestine, I wonder if you are prepared to say the same regarding Israel: that Netanyahu, Smotrich and Ben-Gvir cannot be part of a future government. Is it only the Palestinians for whom you want to set conditions? That is what I wonder.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Risberg for the questions. I am somewhat surprised, I must say. This can be perceived as trying to find a way for Hamas to continue to have a role in Gaza. I think that is a very incorrect way of reasoning.

The UN has established the so-called peace plan for Gaza. It states very clearly regarding the disarmament of Hamas and that Hamas shall not have a role in the future governance. I think this is very clearly regulated through the decision that was made in the UN.

The exact delimitations regarding persons who have had different roles will be something that must be handled in the next stage. But the organization as such has a number of points in its doctrine where it is explicitly stated that Israel may not exist as a state. It is simply impossible to make that work with a negotiated two-state solution.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the answer.

I do not support Hamas in any way. I think their acts of terror and so on are totally reprehensible. I just want to have investigated what exactly is meant by what is constantly being said. It was said long before the UN made this decision.

Hamas' statutes were changed in 2017. According to the new statutes, one can for the time being settle for a Palestine within the 1967 borders. There is at least a recognition that those are the borders that Hamas can imagine seeing. One does not say that one accepts Israel. But on the other hand, one accepts at least on paper a Palestine that exists within the 1967 borders. It is a statement that I have never, ever seen from any Israeli prime minister at all. It is still a bit fascinating.

I will move on to the other question that I wanted to highlight – the one about settlements. We will come back to this. We spoke here in the chamber just a few weeks ago about KKL Sverige, which the member Berntsson has been traveling with.

I must praise Member Berntsson for how actively he in no way lets facts influence his opinions. It is even to the point that on KKL's website and YouTube channel, they advertise a project that they have in the settlement Gilo. It is in occupied territory.

Berntsson stands here and says: I cannot agree with you that KKL works in settlements. Even on its own website, they are very clear that this is a project that they work with and support. It is simply a settlement in occupied territory.

Is it still the case that Member Berntsson thinks that KKL is a good organization and that one wants to continue to support it when it so obviously still contributes to building out settlements in the occupied areas?

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I must once again remain that I am a little surprised that the member brings up the Hamas perspective in this discussion. I just want to add that as a remark.

Then I shall answer the question that I received and that we have discussed many times. There we truly have different views on what KKL Sverige is for something.

The Chairman is now pointing at something that is on the website. The last time we discussed the issue, it was expressed that KKL Sverige was a settler organization. I was clear that I do not agree with that image.

This concerns the visits that a number of Christian Democratic members made before what happened in the Gaza war and before the terror attack in southern Israel. It was about visiting a number of places where they cultivate the desert. They have tree planting and ensure that uninhabited places can grow. That was what we accompanied and visited.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! These days, so many are experiencing what is happening in the Middle East. The war is truly raging anew in a large part of the region. The uncertainty is total for many. What will happen? What will be the result of what we are seeing now?

Mr. Speaker! We have a debate here in the chamber concerning motions from the autumn of 2025. That is the starting point and the framework for this report. The person reading the report can wonder: What on earth! Have they not seen what is happening?

That is how this type of motion report is designed. I just want it said as an introduction as to why so much is not included, even though the debate still moves a bit outside the framework.

The incredibly brutal attack that occurred on October 7, 2023, was a terrorist attack. It was the worst to hit the Jews since World War II. The war that has raged since has been incredibly serious. On October 13 last year, a ceasefire could be reached, and the security council made a decision in November 2025.

Is the ceasefire sustainable? We have seen that the conflict is still simmering. Now the borders in Gaza are being closed. We have a tendency to look where the war is raging the most. The effects on the ceasefire, based on what is currently happening, remain to be seen.

The peace council that was to be met in the coming days has had to be postponed due to what is happening. The effects for the Gulf states and the entire region of what is happening can, of course, also have significant consequences for the plans that have existed for the reconstruction of Gaza.

Hamas is undoubtedly a terrorist organization. It is undoubtedly crimes against humanity that have been committed during the war in Gaza by Hamas and other terrorist organizations but also from Israel's side.

It is important that we get a treatment and that impunity does not prevail, but that people find a way. For those of us who stand up for the rule of law and want impunity not to prevail, it must also apply here and to what has happened during the war in Gaza.

It is important here, just as in other wars, that people feel that there is a path to justice and that there is a beginning to a new future. It gives hope. Is it something that we need to give the people who have been so severely affected by so many wars—is it hope for a better future where respect and tolerance can characterize the region, based on the immense experiences that the people in the region carry with them.

Israel has a history of displacement, genocide, threats, and hatred. But the Palestinians also carry with them what has happened and what they have experienced since World War II ended, since 1948, and not least since 1967. It is truly a hope that it is important for us to try to hold onto.

The consideration also concerns international law. It is not just about the rule of law issues but also about international law and international law which must apply to all states, large as small. For us as a small state, it is very important that we do not forget international law and international law. If we do, others will also fall silent. We will have to feel the effect of that later.

Therefore, it is important that we point out when international law is violated, regardless of whether it is done by a large or a small country. This applies regardless of whether we think it has been a regime that has so brutally oppressed its people for so long, as in the case of Iran. It does not only apply to this regime, but also to the one that existed before the revolution. It was not a democratic country either, if one says so. There is, therefore, a long history.

We naturally stand on the side of the Iranian people, speaking of Iran specifically, in their demands and their struggle for freedom and democracy. It is a dream that they have stood up for so clearly. They deserve all our support, and we hope that they will get to experience freedom and peace and that justice is served for the crimes that have been committed.

When it comes to the report in general, I want to say that the West Bank is an area that must be addressed. It is undoubtedly the case that an annexation of the West Bank is currently taking place with a clearly stated goal of preventing a two-state solution. For all of us who believe in a two-state solution, it is important to act, as this may be one of the last opportunities before facts are established on the ground.

There is the sanctions policy, which we have agreed upon. But it cannot only concern extreme settlers, it must go higher up. There is talk of ministers, but the entire government is actually a part of this.

The question also concerns the Palestinian Authority's possibilities when it does not have funds. The taxes and customs duties collected by Israel are not paid out, so there are no resources to operate.

In this situation, we must do more than just express ourselves and criticize and condemn. We naturally have support for both the ICJ and the ICC. On those grounds, we believe that one must now be prepared to pause the association agreement to put pressure behind what we say: We want to see a future with two states living in peace and freedom with secure borders between them and other recognized borders. It is a dream that still lives, and we must not contribute to that dream dying.

With this, I wish to move for approval of reservation 10 under point 6, which concerns UNRWA. It is something that the Swedish government has voted for in the UN and which we must also ensure we support from the Swedish side, not only in the UN but also on the ground in the region.

(Applause)

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! What we are witnessing in real time is an enormous upheaval in the entire Middle East region.

It is also something we have witnessed for quite a long time. Since the so-called Arab Spring in 2010 with the war in Syria thereafter, the twelve-day war last year between Israel and Iran and of course the massacre on October 7 – which actually started the latest wave of war – I do not think any of us in here, Mr. Speaker, can foresee what will happen in the near future.

The other day, for example, President Trump, JD Vance and Marco Rubio, I believe it was, gave three different messages about what the USA envisions regarding Iran.

We know that 1 percent of Sweden's population has an Iranian identity. Very many have a Kurdish identity or an Assyrian-Syrian, Armenian, Palestinian and so on. We have a fairly large part of the population in our country who may have quite different views on both the one and the other and also on what is happening in the region. But they share the same desire to have peace and quiet; I believe that applies to the vast majority.

The Iranian population is a large and young population. Most in Iran today were born after Ayatollah Khomeini took power in 1979. They have only seen this system. They must be given an opportunity to build something new and create freedom for Iran, build a different society and dismantle the institutions that solely aim to defend a fundamentalist Shiiteocratic regime. We truly must hope that this takes such a turn that the Iranian population is given that chance.

One can look at the Middle East region and choose to go back a shorter or longer period. One can go back to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. One can go back to the wars in 1948 and 1967 between Israel and the Arab states. One can go back to the great shift that occurred in 1979–1980, when Saddam Hussein maneuvered his way to becoming the master of the scene in Iraq while the military carried out a military coup in Turkey. Simultaneously, the Shah in Iran was overthrown, and the country turned 180 degrees in its entire domestic system, but also regionally, and began building up various proxy groups already then. Hezbollah is well the one that is most known.

What can be seen very clearly, Mr. Speaker, is that there are some pockets of pragmatism. There are some areas that have seen pragmatism or democracy and succeeded in a more peaceful coexistence between different groups. But in broad strokes, we have here a region that has practically never had democracy.

It is the lack of liberal values in a broad sense and the lack of politicians who stand for more pragmatic solutions that is the basis for all the problems we see. This applies not only to the Israel–Palestine issue but also to the Kurdish issue, the civil war that raged for 15 years in Lebanon, the oppression we see in Iran and the dysfunctional Iraqi state.

One reason for this lack of liberalism is that the vast majority of these countries – not Iran and partially the exception of Israel, which was founded later – were founded in the 1920s and 1930s during the interwar period, when European colonial powers redrew the map and installed new regimes. They were inspired by the ideas that dominated in Europe at that time, and these ideas were largely intolerant and repressive. It was fascism, Nazism, and communism that dominated the European continent at that time. We have seen that this has led to very many problems with lack of freedom and other things.

Mr. Speaker! I would say that the root cause of the conflict that has raged ever since Israel's re-establishment in 1948 is that a large part of the region fundamentally does not accept the existence of a Jewish state on what they consider to be Islamic territory. That is why all neighboring countries attacked Israel in 1948. Had they not done so, there would have been a Palestinian state already then. They planned to attack Israel in 1967 for precisely the same reasons.

If we move forward a bit, to the 80s, we see how Egypt and Jordan conclude a peace agreement with Israel and normalize their relations with Israel – at least more than before. In recent years, we have seen how the Abraham Accords in Bahrain and the emirate in Morocco, I believe it is, have normalized their relations with Israel.

But the wars that are raging now are not between these countries, but they are wars between deeply radical extremist and sectarian forces that have armed themselves to the teeth, dug extensive tunnel systems under the entire Gaza Strip and used all the means they have obtained, through aid, donations or in other ways, to build up a war machine and attack Israel.

It is this radicalization it is about, where the most important goal is to wipe out the neighbor and not to build something good for oneself. The Iranian regime sends the Iranian population's money to Hamas and Hezbollah instead of building schools and hospitals.

The decisive question, Mr. Speaker, to resolve both the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and a number of other conflicts in the region – they are intertwined in different ways, and collectively they contribute to the Middle East being pulled ever deeper into conflicts – is that a de-radicalization takes place in the Middle East. The single most important thing that must happen is a de-radicalization.

In light of this, it must appear obvious that the most radical forces cannot be those who are to rebuild the countries after this. It becomes completely unreasonable.

I will exceed my eight minutes of speaking time slightly, Mr. Speaker, but not by much, I hope.

We also see this radicalization in Sweden. We see it on streets and squares. For example, there was a pro-Palestinian demonstration in Gothenburg this weekend where demonstrators carried portraits of Ali Khamenei, the Iranian regime's flags, Hezbollah flags, and so on. This radicalization is dangerous even for Sweden. It creates a deep polarization, especially between different immigrant groups, which we must do something about.

This is connected to the antisemitism. I sometimes get the feeling that many in Sweden seem to believe that antisemitism is a rather marginal phenomenon. Why, then, has it not been possible to have a single Jewish meeting in Sweden in the last 40 years without needing police protection or, in practice, being in a bunker complex? Why was that necessary if antisemitism is not a problem in Sweden?

We cannot downplay this, not talk about it and not see our responsibility to protect the Jewish population while they, in their civil society as the only group in Sweden, must lock themselves in during their meetings and cannot announce the meetings due to the risk of being subjected to violence.

We must see that the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians must be resolved in negotiations. The goal must be a two-state solution. This means that we must set very tough demands on Israel. It is fully reasonable to implement restrictive measures against settler extremists and other things in different ways. But we must also see that we have a significant problem even here in Sweden, which means that we as politicians also have a responsibility not to increase the polarization we see.

With this, Mr. Speaker, I would like to vote in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision.

(Applause)

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I have already welcomed Fredrik Malm back to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. But I also say welcome back to the committee's history teacher Fredrik Malm, who is now being replaced by the Committee on Education for us.

Fredrik Malm spoke about the establishment of states in the Middle East during the interwar period. Fundamentally, I think you have an important point. Much of the area has been shaped by European imperialism and also imperialism from the Ottoman Empire, which had great significance in the area. When I described the suffering of the Palestinian people, I also started in 1948 but missed much of the important point regarding the British mandate's imperialism against the Palestinian people in various ways, French imperialism in other parts, and so on.

Europe has thus been involved in creating much of the groundwork for the problems we see today. Now we point fingers and say that the Middle East is a furnace that never stops burning. Do we not in Europe then have a responsibility to act and engage ourselves for a more positive future for the region?

That is what I feel in this debate: We in the opposition produce a lot of proposals on how we think the government should act, but we constantly experience that you from the government parties do not want anything. If we are to achieve the de-radicalization that you want to see, we must support the building of a Palestinian welfare state, but at the same time, we see how you do not contribute to the building of that welfare state.

When you withdraw the funds to the UN body UNRWA, it worsens the possibilities to provide healthcare and education to Palestinian refugees. This leads to this radicalization.

I would also like you to comment on the radicalization we see in Israel, where we see the extremists gaining more and more power and space.

(TALMANNEN: I would like to point out quietly that we speak through the Speaker and do not shout at each other across the floor.)

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Håkan Svenneling for the kind words initially.

I see a major problem in that Europe's position and ability to assert European interests in the Middle East is very weak – even weaker now, I would say, than before. In practice, it is other actors who are directing the development we see.

Europe has clear interests in the Middle East region – to increase trade in the area, to increase humanitarian aid so that people survive, to prevent epidemics and other things, to have a reasonable and orderly migration policy, to strengthen our security in Europe and many other things.

How do we strengthen Europe's influence? We still believe that we have good values and can contribute something positive to the development in these countries. The same thing, I would say, also applies on the African continent. Yes, we must do that through increased engagement and by being there.

I find it very difficult to see that either Sweden's or Europe's interests, or our opportunities to have influence and impact in the region, would be strengthened by a unilateral, continuous condemnation of everything Israel does and by trying to cut all agreements – or by doing as Miljöpartiet wants, who argue that one should not be allowed to trade with Israel at all. I find it very difficult to see that Europe's position would then be strengthened in the region.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that Fredrik Malm is right that Europe's position, at least in a historical perspective, is weaker now than before. Then it is also reasonable that the peoples in these countries themselves should have the power and be able to decide on their own development, but a number of political leaders hinder this in various ways. But it is indeed telling that Europe essentially has a Zoom meeting between its foreign ministers after the attacks by the USA and Israel against Iran and Iran's response.

What surprises me is that you are not prepared to use the tools that are already in the toolbox. The EU is Israel's largest trading partner. We are the market where Israeli export products land to the greatest extent. A third of all trade Israel has is with us in the EU.

In Article 2 of our trade agreement with Israel, we stipulate that Israel shall comply with human rights. When we see that this is not happening, we still do not use the trade agreement. There are absolutely countries that block at different times, but we do not exert sufficient pressure.

What the Swedish government can do is to increase aid to UNRWA, whose purpose is to provide education and healthcare to Palestinian refugees. Education is the foundation for building stronger societies, reduced radicalization, and economic opportunities for the future.

We also have the accompaniment program, where Christians have traveled down to contribute to increased peace and reduced tensions between different groups on site. You have withdrawn the support for that.

It is these things that make us not understand you when you say that you want to de-radicalize. We have a commitment from Europe's side, but we see no actions from the government. I find it very difficult to understand the line that Fredrik Malm is driving here, Mr. Speaker.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! In principle – it is a bit strange that one has to state something such as this – I believe that we should be able to have trade with Israel. I believe that the Israelis should be able to export and import products just as other countries can. Then, of course, we shall place political demands on Israel and other demands on Israel, but I find it difficult to see that it would result in a better situation for either the Israelis, for the Palestinians, or for the Israeli peace movement if a mass of boycotts against Israel are carried out. Now there is even talk of cultural boycotts, but that has not been proposed by Svenneling. That development does not contribute to us having greater opportunities to influence the parties.

We provide extensive humanitarian aid to the Palestinians from the Swedish side. The aid to UNRWA has been reduced, and it was done on very good grounds. UNRWA has developed in such a way that, as a result of the charter and the principles on which the mandate rests, UNRWA has not only contributed to improvements in the area but also contributed to the conflict becoming harder to resolve.

But the humanitarian aid must, of course, reach the Palestinians. No one would be happier than I if Israel would open the Kerem Shalom crossing and the other various border crossings, or if Egypt can do it, so that more aid reaches the Palestinians.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The debate has been a bit tricky for me today. I have spent the whole day wondering what I should pick up. I have never had so little written down in advance for a debate as this one, while at the same time there is always so much to say. I know that last year, during a debate on Israel and Palestine, I spoke for 20 minutes, but I will try to avoid that today. I have written down for twelve minutes, but I will try not to go that far.

I will begin by saying that I move for the approval of reservation 1. I naturally stand behind all our reservations – and I will not say anything about time saving.

First, I want to provide some clarifications regarding Hamas. It may have been misunderstood what I mean when I speak about Hamas. It is not that I want to see Hamas rule Gaza, but because I have studied peace and conflict knowledge, I know that it does not work to from the beginning set conditions for who may participate in peace negotiations and set conditions for who shall be allowed to rule in the future. Peace will never come from that.

The Moderates went back in time to 1967 and spoke about the occupation. KD went back to the events of October 7, except that the member pointed out that Hamas has built up capacity over a long period. I assume it concerns a long period before October 7. Then finally the Liberal member arrived and started talking history, and it is just fantastic.

It is a bit strange to make it sound like it is the Arab countries' fault that there is no Palestinian state today, that it was the war in 1948, when the Arab countries attacked Israel, that caused the Palestinians not to get a state. One forgets in that case what Israel did at that time – before the state of Israel had even been proclaimed. After November 1947, when the partition plan was adopted by the UN, the Jews considered that they had a right to their own state. They then began a displacement of Palestinians. Half of the 750,000 refugees we talk about today, al-nakba as it is called, the great catastrophe, were displaced before the war even began.

Then the war came, and the remaining half of the 750,000 were also displaced. It was not only from Israel but also within Israel. 300,000 Palestinians who are Israeli citizens today are still refugees in their own country. They have never been allowed to return to their villages. 530 villages were destroyed in 1948–1949 by Israel.

We must also remember how Israel handled the Palestinians who remained in Israel after the 1948 war. They were forced to live under military laws, and they were not allowed to move freely in Israel. They were deprived of their own land by having various areas turned into military zones where they were not allowed to cultivate the land. Then laws were introduced which meant that if someone had not cultivated their land within three years, the land would belong to the state. It was an effective way to seize more and more of the land that the Palestinians had cultivated for hundreds of years.

Palestinians live under the same laws today in occupied territory. They live under different laws than Israeli citizens. In the occupied areas of the West Bank, there are 700,000–800,000 Israeli settlers today. They live under civil laws, but the Palestinians live under military laws. It is in the same area!

This has been said before: A Palestinian boy and an Israeli boy throw stones at each other. Say they are 13 years old – no, we say 12. Then they are under the Tidö parties' view of what is punishable or not. The twelve-year-old Palestinian boy is taken into military detention and prosecuted while the twelve-year-old Israeli boy is released. They live under different types of laws. This had a specific name in South Africa: apartheid.

It is not just about how one acts now, but we have seen this throughout history. Ever since the state of Israel was formed, there has been a different view of the Palestinians. They have wanted to expel them, and those they have not succeeded in expelling, they have bundled together in different small areas.

Then we come to the Oslo Accords in the 90s. It is an agreement that in some way reinforces the occupation in an unpleasant way. In addition to promising that more settlements will not move in, it is nevertheless allowed that special roads are built for settlements in occupied territory. One also builds up a number of roadblocks and prevents Palestinians from moving between different villages.

The Liberal member spoke about how the Palestinians have prioritized incorrectly when they have not built up their own state but instead invested everything in building tunnels. I say again that I do not support Hamas's actions, but this is not just about Hamas in Gaza, it is also about how one acts in the West Bank.

The Palestinians do not have the right to control their own borders. The Palestinians do not have the right to control their own airspace or their own coast. The Palestinians do not have control over their own imports or exports, as everything is controlled by Israel. The Palestinians do not even have control over their tax revenues, as they are channeled via Israel. The tax revenues are withheld so that pressure can occasionally be exerted on the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinians are not allowed to move freely in the occupied territories.

When the Palestinians have demonstrated over the decades, they have been met with bullets. Even when they are not demonstrating, as we see even today, they are met with bullets on the West Bank. To accuse them in such situations of not having succeeded in building their own state is a bit bold.

I will say something about the last few weeks. Much has been said about the Iran war in the speaker's chair today. Another downside of the Iran war is that they are once again taking the opportunity to increase the violence in the occupied areas, especially on the West Bank. Now they have once again closed certain crossings to Gaza. A couple of days ago, they did not allow any humanitarian aid to enter Gaza at all.

A few weeks ago, a decision was made in the Israeli Knesset that has received little attention in Sweden. It concerns Area C, approximately 62 percent of the West Bank, which has previously been under Israeli military control and is now to fall under Israeli civil administration.

Is it good or bad? It is actually very bad. It means that, according to Israel, it is no longer a question of a military occupation. This is something that underpins the occupation, and it will become even more difficult for Palestinians to move in area C, to build in area C, and to cultivate the land in area C. That the decision passed without any attention whatsoever in Sweden is uncomfortable and remarkable.

There is so much more to say, but the evening is late and more debates will follow this one. Therefore, I will content myself, Mr. Speaker. I believe that we will return to the question several times ahead.

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thought that Member Risberg would clarify his previous statements regarding exactly Hamas and Hamas's role in a future Gaza. It became somewhat unclear in a previous exchange of remarks. And it is still unclear after this speech, I mean.

The government's and the committee majority's view is that Hamas must be disarmed and that Hamas cannot have a place in a future government of Gaza. That is the summary of the position.

Then I must just ask for the sake of clarity: Does the member share this view, that Hamas cannot have a place in a future government of Gaza? I mean that it must be clarified, because it sounded as if Hamas would at least participate in some form of dialogue. I do not quite know what the member means. I believe, however, that we in the majority of the committee imagine that there should not be so much dialogue with Hamas other than explaining to them where they should put down their weapons when they go home.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

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

It is a very interesting question. It is not entirely simple to answer.

I will first and foremost say: Hamas must absolutely be disarmed. I completely agree with that. And I really hope that Hamas is not part of a future government. But Hamas is much broader than just a terrorist organization. Hamas has been much more. The founding of Hamas is not just about the relationship towards Israel, but it is also about providing social aid, healthcare and so on.

One can, for example, compare with how Hezbollah in Lebanon has been handled. It is Hezbollah's armed wing that has been designated as a terrorist organization. The entirety of Hezbollah has not been designated as a terrorist organization by the EU. There, a distinction has been made. It is much easier to say that the armed wing definitely should have nothing to do with a future government.

Hamas is an idea that I do not believe one will succeed in getting rid of, at least not with violence. The best way to make an organization powerless is to give it the opportunity to show how it manages to run a civil government. We have seen this in many other conflicts as well. When one excludes groups from negotiations, it only increases mistrust. It probably increases radicalization and probably also leads eventually to new attacks from those organizations.

I hope that Hamas is disarmed. I hope that Hamas will not be any part of the future Palestinian government. But it is not my business to decide that. It must be the Israelis and the Palestinians who come to a conclusion themselves. How is this to be solved? Which political parties shall be allowed to exist?

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is good that we have this discussion, because we probably do not have the same view of what kind of movement Hamas is. I have perceived Hamas as a totalitarian, Islamist, and anti-Semitic movement which, admittedly, also has in its program that it offers social services. But fundamentally, it is an organization totally permeated by a sick ideology that cannot be accepted under any circumstances.

One must still be able to say that they are not invited to discussions other than how they are to carry out the surrender itself.

Hamas has many times been compared to the German Nazis, and it is perfectly reasonable. It is clear that the Allies, when they occupied Germany after the war, spoke with the Nazis. But it was precisely about how the Nazis would dismantle themselves and about them never again being allowed to have any influence whatsoever. It was nothing that the German people themselves got to decide. It was the victorious powers who decided who would be allowed to rule in Germany after the war. It was perfectly reasonable.

I believe many imagine that Hamas should be treated in the same way. Why is that not reasonable in this case, when we are talking about such a sick organization? Now it sounds like the member thinks there should be a long peace process and that Hamas should be a party in it and perhaps even play a political role afterwards. I question this entirely. Is this really the Green Party's policy?

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the question.

Again: It cannot be I who decides how a future Palestine shall be governed. I hope, as said, that Hamas has nothing to do with the governance. But I can state how it has been in recent years, where we have had different terrorist groups that have attacked and where peace solutions have been reached.

Compare, for example, with Northern Ireland! It was only when one sat down and talked with the IRA that a solution was reached, when their political wing Sinn Féin was allowed to participate in the political elections. They were terrible. They killed indiscriminately.

I really hope that Hamas does not have a future role. Hamas is described here as an anti-Semitic organization. I would say it is an anti-Israel organization. But sure, we can say it is an anti-Semitic organization. It is believed that they cannot change at all. There are other organizations that have sprung up even here in Sweden, with neo-Nazi characteristics and that have been anti-Semitic. Some parties cooperate with them today. That might have been unthinkable 20 years ago.

What is to happen in the future in Palestine must actually be something that the Palestinians and the Israelis come to an agreement on themselves. If the Palestinians say that they do not want anything to do with Hamas, that is fine, very good. But it is they who must come to that conclusion. I cannot, as a member of a Swedish parliament, decide that for them.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! Jacob Risberg is somewhat selective when he goes through his historical odyssey regarding this conflict. It is very true that Palestinians were displaced. It is a completely obvious historical fact. In the magnitude of 700,000–750,000 Palestinians left the area. Some perhaps did so voluntarily to escape the fighting. Some were displaced systematically, so to speak.

What Jacob Risberg, on the other hand, does not mention, Mr. Speaker, is that just as many Jews came to the area because they were expelled from the entire Arab world. They were integrated into Israel. They are like all other residents in Israel.

What happened to the Palestinians who left the area and ended up in different refugee camps – in Yarmouk in Syria, in Ein El Hilweh and Nahr elBared in Lebanon or in Saudi Arabia, Jordan or other countries?

They received no citizenship. They have not been integrated. The whole idea has been that they have been a pawn. The Palestinian population has been a pawn for decades. It has been said that everyone shall return to Israel, even though everyone realizes that it is completely unrealistic.

That is what I mean, Jacob Risberg, when I speak about how the Arab world has not taken its responsibility in this. It also applies to a number of other conflicts. The Arab countries could have stood up for their Syrian brothers and sisters during the war for 15 years. They did very little for them.

Furthermore, I would not say that the Arab countries, so to speak, have acted poorly for a Palestinian state. I would say that they have actively opposed it. During 1948–1967, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank were controlled by Egypt and Jordan. There was not a single thought of establishing a Palestinian rule there, for example.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! There were many questions. I will try to clarify something that I perceived as a question. It concerns this matter with the Palestinian refugees and why they were not integrated in the various Arab countries. The question is also: Did they want to be integrated? Most of those who flee hope that they will be able to return to their homes the next day.

It is enshrined in the UN Charter – and above all in the UNHCR Charter, which was not written when the Palestinian refugees emerged – that there is a right of return. Palestinians who have been in exile have, all along, dreamed of returning to their homeland. Why should we demand that the surrounding Arab states make them their citizens? Why should they not have the right to return? Why did they not receive that right from the beginning?

One can again compare with how we act here in Sweden today. We send refugees back to their home countries, but Palestinians are apparently not to be allowed to return to their home country. I find that strange.

I think it is a bit of a strange view. One blames the surrounding Arab states for not having integrated the Palestinian refugees. The Palestinian refugees have all along thought that they would be allowed to return to their home next year. That has not happened.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! Is it reasonable that in the Middle East there are dozens of refugee camps for Palestinian refugees that have existed for almost 80 years? Would we accept that? In all other countries, people talk about that people must be able to obtain citizenship, work, integrate, and so on.

This is a terrible situation, and the responsibility for it falls on the countries that have not stepped up to integrate the Palestinian refugees. It was clear many years ago. Those who fled in 1948 are perhaps a few tens of thousands today, while the number of people in UNRWA's system is well 6–7 million today. Everyone understands that the fact that one is a third-generation refugee does not give any kind of automatic right to return.

The fundamental problem here, which Jacob Risberg does not consider, is the following: When Israel was formed after the war, the position of all the countries around it was that one was not even allowed to speak with Israel. It was a position that these countries maintained for decades. It took more than 40 years before what became the Oslo Accords began to be negotiated. For half that time, or more than so, the West Bank and Gaza were controlled by the neighboring Arab countries Jordan and Egypt.

When one looks at this history, one cannot, as unilaterally as Jacob Risberg does, place 99.5 percent of the blame on one side. It is not reasonable to do so. Israel has committed many, many mistakes in this, but the reason there is no Palestinian state is that there is no negotiated solution for a Palestinian state. That is why Israel can continue to expand in the way that Israel does.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! The better the Palestinian authority behaved, the more territory one would get to take care of, we believed in connection with the Oslo Accords. That was however never the case. That was the dream that existed of a Palestinian state.

Member of the Board Malm asked if it is reasonable. I wonder if it is reasonable that a Palestinian who was born in Haifa and who has been displaced from there is not allowed to return to their homeland, while a person who perhaps has never set foot in Israel but who happens to be born Jewish has the right to settle in Haifa. I think one should ask oneself if it is truly reasonable.

Not all Palestinian refugees will be able to return – that is the fact. But we shall remember this: When Resolution 181, regarding the partition plan, was adopted, the intention was that it should be up to each individual to decide for themselves whether they wanted to stay where they lived or not. If one chose to move from there, or was displaced, one would have a right to compensation. That compensation has been completely absent for the land areas and the properties that all Palestinians have been deprived of during these decades.

We can start talking in that direction instead of talking about all Palestinians having a right to return, because everyone understands that it will not happen. We must at least start considering what kind of compensation they would then receive. That is where we can start the discussion on this, I think.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! We have divided it so that I will focus on the aid. I naturally agree with everything that my colleague Håkan Svenneling previously stated here in the rostrum.

The need for aid to the severely hit Gaza will be enormous for a very long time to come. At least 70,000 civilians – likely more – have been killed in the genocide. People are still dying, despite the fact that a fragile ceasefire is in place.

In the large sense, all of Gaza lies in ruins. Hospitals, schools and residential buildings are destroyed. The infrastructure does not function. People lack electricity, clean water, food and medicine. 90 percent of the population is completely dependent on aid. 1.5 million Palestinians are homeless and live in damaged tents without protection against weather and rain.

Despite the ceasefire, Gaza remains one of the worst and most dangerous places in the world for children to live in. Almost daily, children are killed in Gaza. Several newborns have frozen to death during the winter, and 55,000 Palestinian children suffer from acute malnutrition. The aid needs to get in. All aid crossings must be opened. Humanitarian aid organizations must be given rapid and unimpeded access to people in distress.

The number of illegal settlements is increasing at a record pace. In just five years, the number of settlements in the West Bank has increased by 180 percent, with the approval of the Israeli state and in defiance of the UN. Palestinians are terrorized, killed, and displaced by the thousands from their homes. The Israeli authorities choke off the water supply, destroy Palestinian homes, and watch while settlers burn down olive groves, which are a fundamental pillar of the Palestinian economy. It is evident that even the support for Palestinians in the West Bank must increase.

The most important organization supporting the Palestinian refugees is the UN agency UNRWA, which was established as early as 1949 and which has the UN's mandate to protect and support Palestinian refugees. It concerns several million Palestinian refugees and their relatives who have been displaced from their homes since Israel was formed.

UNRWA provides basic services and humanitarian aid to approximately six million Palestinian refugees in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan and is a cornerstone of the humanitarian efforts throughout the region. The organization's staff and local knowledge are absolutely crucial for the life-saving humanitarian effort in Gaza.

A large majority of the UN member states recently voted to renew UNRWA's mandate. UNRWA has the overall responsibility for the Palestinian refugees. There is no organization that can replace UNRWA except for a functioning Palestinian state. The stabilizing role that UNRWA plays in the region must also not be underestimated.

It is obvious that Israel is trying to get rid of the Palestinian refugee problem by discrediting and banning UNRWA, but despite Israel's attacks, UNRWA continues to be operational in Gaza, the West Bank, and in the region with thousands in the workforce and robust systems.

The world needs to stand up for and defend UNRWA and increase aid to this indispensable organization, but Sweden instead chose, as the only country in Europe, to completely withdraw support to UNRWA in a situation where it is needed more than ever. It is completely unjustifiable. Swedish support to UNRWA must be resumed as soon as possible.

The government is clear that the settlement policy violates international law, undermines the two-state solution, and contributes to an elevated level of conflict. It is therefore strange that Sida has chosen to stop the support to several Palestinian rights organizations and to the Swedish part of the Ecumenical Companion Program, which contributes to reducing violence and promoting a two-state solution.

For over 20 years, the so-called companions – international observers from around the world – have come to the West Bank to protect the civilian population, mitigate violence, document human rights violations, and show support for Palestinian and Israeli organizations and individuals working for a peaceful solution to the conflict.

The Swedish Ecumenical Companion Programme in Palestine and Israel started in 2002. Since then, more than 2,000 international observers from approximately 25 countries, of which approximately 400 are from Sweden, have been on site in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem to provide protection and support to the civilian population under the leadership of the World Council of Churches.

Följeslagare has walked with Palestinian schoolchildren past military checkpoints on the way to school, provided international protection for livestock herders and families harvesting their olives, and documented when families have had their homes demolished or their land confiscated. Why is this peacekeeping project, which has successfully contributed to protecting the civilian population and documenting various abuses, being stopped?

Recently, Israel has also largely prohibited all major aid organizations from operating in Gaza and the West Bank. In practice, it is now only the Red Cross that Israel accepts. It concerns about forty organizations, such as Save the Children, Doctors Without Borders, and Oxfam. Does the government also this time intend to listen to Israel and stop the support also to these organizations? I really hope not.

Doctors Without Borders tells the news agency AP that Israel's decision has catastrophic consequences for their work in Gaza, where they provide approximately 20 percent of the hospital beds and a third of the births.

Several countries' foreign ministers, including the Swedish Foreign Minister, have protested against the decision. That is good, but words are not enough. To reverse the development, the rest of the world must put hard pressure on Israel through sanctions, such as freezing the association agreements but also by boycotting goods, at least from occupied territory.

At the same time, we must do everything we can to support the vulnerable Palestinian people, both in Gaza and in the West Bank, as well as the Palestinian refugees in the surrounding area. Aid to Palestine must increase, the special strategy must be reintroduced, and support for the Ecumenical Companion Program and organizations working for peace, democracy, and human rights must be resumed, including support for UNRWA.

(Applause)

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Foreign Affairs' report on the situation in Israel and Palestine.

In the Middle East, Europe's and Sweden's moral compass is being tested, as the conflict so clearly concerns the difference between a democracy that defends its citizens and an Islamist terrorist movement that builds its strategy on mass murder, hostage-taking, and propaganda.

The Sweden Democrats are consistent on the issue. Hamas is a terrorist organization. The organization is listed as a terrorist organization in the EU and is subject to sanctions, and it is a non-contact policy that applies. It is a foundation that we must stand firmly on and not erode with symbolic politics or relativization.

Israel has the right to defend itself against terrorist attacks. It is a self-evident point of international law and a moral self-evident truth. A state must be able to protect its population.

A plan forward must not allow Hamas to retain any military capability or political influence. If they are allowed to have it, it does not mean peace, but it would rather be a pause before the next massacre. Demilitarization cannot be seen as a detail, but it is the very core.

The Foreign Affairs Committee asserts that Hamas must be disarmed and that Hamas cannot have any place in a future government of Gaza. It is absolutely crucial.

At the same time, Madam Speaker, Sweden must be principled when it matters. International law applies. The protection of civilians applies. Humanitarian access must function. The Committee emphasizes that humanitarian aid must never be used as a bargaining chip.

The volumes that reach [the destination] are still judged to be insufficient, and restrictions prevent international organizations from operating. Here, our position is clear: Aid must reach civilians, and it must not be intercepted by extremist groups. Transparency and control are not harshness. It is a prerequisite for humanity to become a reality.

Another part of the responsibility is transparency and oversight. The committee views, just like the government, with concern that international media are not being granted access to Gaza. The blocking of journalists must cease, not least for documentation and accountability. In a conflict where disinformation is a weapon, independent scrutiny must be allowed to exist. It is in everyone's interest that facts are tested.

Madam Speaker! We must also keep two thoughts in mind at the same time. That one is pro-Israel and stands up for Israel's right to defend itself does not mean that one turns a blind eye to such things as complicate a future political solution. The illegal settlements violate international law, undermine a two-state solution and contribute to a heightened level of conflict.

The Sweden Democrats do not want to see a policy that feeds extremism or that locks in lines of conflict for generations. Therefore, it is reasonable that targeted measures are used against extremist settlers and also against actors who enable violence. The focus should be on accuracy, legal certainty, and sanctions directed at those who drive violence.

Madam Speaker! Our line is clear. We have zero tolerance for Islamist terror. Hamas must be disarmed, and they must be removed from all forms of governance in Gaza.

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

Björn Söder (SD)

Madam Speaker! There have been some historical descriptions here, and I also thought I would venture into that a little bit to balance Jacob Risberg's historical description. I thought I would take off from April 26, 1920, when, based on the Balfour Declaration, it was decided to reach an agreement on the administration of three areas: Palestine, Syria, and Mesopotamia.

It was the victorious powers after the First World War – England, France, Italy and Japan – who, with the USA as an observer, met to resolve the issues that had remained unsolved since the peace conference in Paris in 1919. They decided that Great Britain would be given responsibility for Palestine and Mesopotamia and that France would be given responsibility for Syria and Lebanon.

The League of Nations approved the British Mandate for Palestine in July 1922, which then consisted of Gaza, Judea, Samaria and Jordan. In 1922, Transjordan was formed on three-quarters of the British Mandate for Palestine. One-quarter remained. Great Britain felt that it was a costly affair to maintain security in the area and would gladly be rid of the responsibility. In 1946, Transjordan became independent and was able to form an Arab kingdom.

In 1947, the UN, through resolution 181, proposed that a Jewish and an Arab state should be formed on the remaining quarter. Israel was positive towards it, but the Arabs rejected it and renounced the formation of a state. Thus, the resolution ended up in the wastebasket and is in no way binding.

In 1948, Israel proclaimed independence. The next day, the neighboring Arab states attacked Israel, as they absolutely could not accept it. The war of independence lasted for just over a year, and in 1949, a ceasefire was reached. At that time, Jordan occupied large parts of Judea and Samaria and also eastern Jerusalem. Israel lived with this for almost 20 years, until 1967. The ceasefire lines cut straight through houses, where one could be in Israel in the kitchen while being in Arab territory in the living room. In 1967, the Arab states attacked again. They did not want to accept a Jewish state, and the Six-Day War began.

When we talk about the 1967 borders, I wonder: Which borders are these? There were, therefore, ceasefire lines since 1949. Is it those we are to return to?

In 1973, the Arab states made another attempt to wipe out the State of Israel through the Yom Kippur War.

It was a short and quick historical description.

It may also be worth pointing out that Jordan in 1988 renounced territorial claims to Judea and Samaria and that since 1994 there has been a peace treaty between Israel and Jordan.

What are the 1967 borders then? Well, they are ceasefire lines. The two-state solution that many talk about already existed earlier. One had the Arab part east of the Jordan River and the Israeli and Jewish part west of the Jordan River. When people talk about the two-state solution today, it is rather a three-state solution that is being proposed.

It was a bit to clarify this. Now the time is up. Thank you for the floor!

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on March 11.)

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