The situation in Israel and Palestine etc.

Fredrik Saweståhl (M)

Madam Speaker! Sweden has for a long time, for several decades, regardless of the majority in the Riksdag, stood for a balanced and moderate line when it comes to the view on the Middle East and Israel and Palestine. That line can simply be summarized by that we stand for a two-state solution and for both Israelis and Palestinians to be able to live in peace, freedom and security. Both Israelis and Palestinians shall be able to live in countries that are democracies and functioning states of law where human rights are respected.

It is the line that Sweden traditionally stands for. And it is the line that we Moderates and the Moderate-led government stand for today. There is still a broad support behind the line, but we see an increased polarization and an increased division in Sweden when it comes to the view on the Middle East. It is a picture that is recognized even from other countries in Europe. There is a radicalization that does not favor a sensible discussion or sensible positions and sensible actions.

It is incredibly strange that there are forces who think it is controversial and wrong to say that we strive for a two-state solution and that both states should be able to live in peace, freedom and security. To assert that Hamas's oppression of the Palestinian people in Gaza must cease and that terrorists must be removed from all influence are self-evident truths that, therefore, there are people in Sweden who do not agree with.

These forces have become increasingly loud. We see and have seen demonstrations in Sweden and other countries where it is shouted and chanted to wipe the state of Israel off the map. "From the river to the sea" is shouted, which means that Israel shall disappear. There are no other interpretations.

Those who shout this deny a two-state solution and deny both peoples the opportunity to live in peace and freedom. Among those who shout, we know that there are those who are involved in parties to the left in Swedish politics, parties that also sit in Sweden's Riksdag. We know that there are those within these parties who turn a blind eye, turn a deaf ear, and let these people be held. We know that there are even those who encourage this conduct, and it is a problem for the democratic conversation.

Madam Speaker! October 7, 2023, became a black day in history. The date will live on as one of the dates that shook and changed the world. The bestial murder sect and the terror organization Hamas chose this day to, together with allied murder gangs, attack Israel with the sole purpose of murdering, raping, and mutilating as many as possible. It was youths at a music festival, peace activists on their kibbutz, elderly people and infants – there were no limits. The result was the worst pogrom to hit the Jewish people since World War II. It was the deadliest day since the Holocaust, with over 1,100 murdered Israelis. It did not stop there. Injured, but living, people were dragged to Gaza as hostages of the murder sect. Some are still there.

Our message from the Swedish side is crystal clear, just like the one from the European side and from all sane forces in the world: Hostages must be released unconditionally now.

Madam Speaker! The attack led, not surprisingly, to a powerful response from Israel, and the war that followed has been extensive and has become a great tragedy for the civilian population in Gaza. When Hamas and other terror actors attack Israel by raining missiles over the country, the population is protected by both shelters and an advanced air defense. In Gaza, it is the opposite. The civilian population is left to its fate and used as human shields while the terrorists and murderers cowardly hide in tunnels and cowardly use schools, hospitals, and places for aid and emergency relief as missile factories, weapons depots, and launch sites.

The total contempt for human life is telling. The total contempt for the well-being of Gazans that Hamas and their allies show is clear. This does not absolve Israel and the Israeli army of their responsibility. Even when there are legitimate reasons to go to war, one has a great – very great – responsibility to do what can be done to protect civilian inhabitants and civilian infrastructure and to enable access for humanitarian aid and disaster relief. This has not always been lived up to, and it is a transgression. That was why it was welcome when an agreement on a ceasefire was finally reached in January this year. Perhaps we would still see a brightening on the horizon?

The ceasefire lasted for a number of weeks, even if it was shaky. The terror group Hamas released a number of hostages, even though they, in defiance of all humanity and all rules, turned the releases into humiliating propaganda shows. Israel released thousands of imprisoned Palestinians in exchange, many of whom were, on good grounds, convicted serious criminals. The ceasefire also made it possible to finally bring in extensive humanitarian aid to the besieged civilian population in Gaza, something that is important and must be allowed to continue. The terror groups in Gaza, with Hamas at the forefront, must be forced to keep their long fingers away from the aid. Israel must let the aid into the area and guarantee the humanitarian access.

Madam Speaker! Now the situation on the ground has escalated again. In the wake of actions from the Hamas side regarding the hostages, the ceasefire has been broken. In this situation, Sweden's line, as the government clearly states, is to take the resumption of hostilities seriously, and it is emphasized that what must now happen is that all remaining hostages are released, that humanitarian access is ensured, and that a lasting end to the hostilities is achieved.

Civilians must be protected, and the parties must urgently find a way forward in the negotiations. A new ceasefire that it can then be built upon needs to be established. Even though the situation is difficult, we cannot let go of the efforts to find a way forward, a way toward a functioning two-state solution. The situation needs to be de-escalated, not escalated.

Madam Speaker! It is only to be stated that the humanitarian situation in Gaza is very difficult and the needs are acute and enormous. It is therefore good that the Swedish commitment to the humanitarian situation regarding both Gaza and the region at large is uninterruptedly great and strong.

In December, the Moderate-led government decided to significantly increase, in fact double, the humanitarian support to the severely affected civilian population in Gaza and the region to 800 million. The significantly expanded support is conveyed through a number of different actors such as the World Food Programme and so on to ensure what is absolutely most necessary right now, namely that aid and life-saving supplies actually reach the civilian population, who are suffering great distress.

The difficult humanitarian situation requires major efforts over time. Now, and on the day when the war is actually over, it is important that our aid is used both for continued humanitarian help and for support for long-term sustainable development in the area. The government's and Sweden's strategy is clear in its focus on growth, trade, institution-building, and democracy.

We need to both contribute to a practical reconstruction of infrastructure and housing, healthcare and school, and to ensuring that the Gaza that is rebuilt after the war and the Palestinian state we want to emerge is built around freedom and democracy, respect for human rights and a functioning rule of law. It is the only reasonable way for there to be the prerequisites for a functioning two-state solution in accordance with international law.

It is a major setback, not only for the situation in the Middle East but for the entire world, that the USA has paused its aid and clearly speaks about wanting to dismantle USAID so that they more or less disappear. With them disappear, as we all know, very large resources. It is actually deeply sad. Unfortunately, it means a very large withdrawal that is difficult to compensate for. This loss we cannot replace in a heartbeat, however much we would like to.

Madam Speaker! It is important that when the war stops again, we do everything we can to contribute to a lasting and sustainable peace. The world faces a great challenge when it comes to the reconstruction of Gaza and finding a way for a functioning two-state solution that includes a democratic Palestinian state.

There is a serious plan for the reconstruction of Gaza that we can rally around. It is the plan that was first presented by Egypt and which is supported by the Arab League. It is a welcome plan, and it has already gathered support from us on the European side. It is particularly welcome that the Arab world now clearly wants to step in and contribute fully to rebuilding what has been destroyed during decades of Hamas's oppression of the Palestinian population in Gaza.

It is essential to emphasize that the plans are based on the fact that Hamas and their allies cannot play a role in the new Gaza. A civil administration must be put in place. Security must be guaranteed for the Palestinian population. It must not fall into the hands of terrorists again. The new government in Gaza and the existing Palestinian government in the West Bank must be built together so that we find a reasonable way forward for a functioning Palestine.

The alternative plan for Gaza's future that has been presented by a man on the western side of the world, perhaps we should leave without comment as it can hardly be considered serious.

Regarding the situation in the West Bank, we also want to be clear about what is the government's line. Even here, humanitarian aid must be allowed in. The worsened situation must be calmed down, and Israel must have and take a clear responsibility for that happening. It is not a situation for more war and more misery. The violence perpetrated by extremist settlers must be stopped, and we clearly condemn this violence. Overall, the settlement policy, Israel's great Achilles' heel, must cease. We also need to continue working so that the Palestinian government in the West Bank becomes more democratic and puts peace, freedom, and respect for the own population's human rights first.

Madam Speaker! October 7 will, as has been said, continue to live on as one of the most upheaval dates in history. If we lift our eyes from Gaza and look at the entire region, we see that Hamas's cruel terror attack has led to quite large convulsions.

After Hezbollah in Lebanon, on orders from Iran, started its own war against Israel, the terror movement is now forced to its knees. Their enormous power over Lebanon has hopefully been broken. There is reason for some cautious optimism that it will be possible to rebuild democratic and functioning institutions in Lebanon. With a new president and prime minister in place and a ceasefire that looks set to hold and be observed, the rest of the world, not least ourselves and other forces in Europe, should give our clear support to the good forces in Lebanon.

Iran's influence in the entire region has been significantly weakened. This is important for stability and for a more peaceful future. The tentacles of Iran's current regime must not be allowed to spread across the region again.

We have also seen the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria. It fell like a poorly constructed house of cards. Despite enormous challenges and already quite many setbacks, we also need to feel some optimism here. But our, the world's, demands must also be clear. Minorities' rights must be respected. This applies to all minorities, including the Christian minorities in Syria. Society must be rebuilt, and one must strive to become a democratic state governed by the rule of law. At the same time, it is important to be clear that Israel, with its actions, must not sabotage the possibility of a better future in Syria.

Madam Speaker! To conclude: Now the hostages must be released. There must be no more talk on that issue. Now the war must cease, and the building of something new beyond terror and oppression must begin. Israel and the Palestinians must be allowed to live in peace, freedom, and democracy in countries that respect human rights. With that, Madam Speaker, I move for approval of the proposals in the Foreign Affairs Committee's report, which means that I move for the rejection of all motions.

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

Johan Büser (S)

Madam Speaker! Yesterday, I and a number of Members of Parliament met executives from the UN agency UNRWA here in the Riksdag, and during their visit to Sweden, UNRWA also meets government representatives who belong to Member Saweståhl's own party. We received a description of UNRWA's activities. It is fully operational and operates in Gaza under the extremely difficult conditions prevailing there. The focus is, naturally, on emergency aid.

UNRWA also operates on the West Bank, where they provide community services, for example education. They also operate in East Jerusalem, where they run schools. In addition, they are also present in other countries, such as Syria, Lebanon and Jordan.

When the Swedish government decided to cut the support in the middle of an ongoing humanitarian catastrophe in the Middle East, Minister for Development Cooperation Dousa justified it by saying that the money to UNRWA would anyway just get stuck in a bank account. UNRWA was able to state yesterday that the money will enter a bank account in Jordan and that it truly does good.

When I earlier today asked a question during the question period here in the chamber, Minister Dousa repeated that the money gets stuck in bank accounts. This is a falsehood that we must move away from.

Member of Parliament Saweståhl said that it is important that there is no polarization. But Sweden is now the only EU country that currently provides no support to UNRWA. Thus, Sweden stands out as an odd bird, and it happens with a government that otherwise often speaks of EU coordination.

Does Member Saweståhl really think that in this situation it is right to choke off the money to the only organization on the ground that can provide real emergency aid and community services to the Palestinians?

(Applause)

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

Fredrik Saweståhl (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Johan Büser for the questions.

It is naturally incredibly important that we reach the humanitarian support, the aid, and the help that the very heavily tested population in Gaza needs now. This also applies to the West Bank and other parts of the region.

It is true that the government has chosen to end the cooperation with UNRWA, but we are not the only ones. We know that the Netherlands is also in a process of phasing out its support.

One can, of course, twist and turn the arguments and think it is right or wrong. I think the most important thing is that we increase our engagement in the region – we have doubled the humanitarian support – and that we use different channels to get the message across. There are many different channels one can use. World Food Programme is one. There is a long line of other UN agencies, the Red Cross and many other organizations.

I do not deny that UNRWA does a good job in parts of the region – that is true. But we have chosen other ways to channel our support, and we do not intend to reconsider that.

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

Johan Büser (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer.

I note that we do not share the same view and that the Social Democrats' view is shared by all of the EU's countries except for Sweden and the Swedish government.

During the week, the two-month-long fragile ceasefire was broken, despite there being a plan for several phases. Several countries spoke out quickly and clearly. France condemned Israel very harshly for breaking the ceasefire. I still lack a similar condemnation from the Swedish government.

If one wants to find a bourgeois politician who speaks as it is regarding the Israel-Palestine issue, one can usually turn to the former Moderate leader and Foreign Minister Carl Bildt. He says that Israel deliberately and with the approval of the USA broke the ceasefire because they did not want to fulfill the conditions that had been agreed upon previously.

Who does Member Saweståhl believe is responsible for the fact that over a thousand people have died in two days due to the broken ceasefire?

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

Fredrik Saweståhl (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Johan Büser for the questions.

It is naturally extremely bad that the ceasefire has been broken. Even though it was shaky and there were violations on both the right and the left, it worked for a while. It would have been very desirable for the parties to sit down together to enter a new phase. It would have been needed. From this perspective, we from the Swedish side have been clear that it is unacceptable that the ceasefire has been broken and that Israel has an enormous responsibility to ensure that humanitarian access is guaranteed. One must do what can be done to protect the civilian population in Gaza.

Our view is that the entire situation naturally depends on Hamas's heinous terrorist acts on October 7, 2023. If they had not done that, the situation would have looked completely different. Now it can be stated that both Hamas and other parties have acted in a way that has led to the ceasefire being broken. Israel has its responsibility for that. We all know that there are also domestic political reasons in Israel that have also triggered this. From such a perspective, the responsibility should be distributed among many parties in the conflict and in the region.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! No more talk, said Member Saweståhl at the conclusion of his speech. But I think more talk is needed if a ceasefire is to be achieved. Negotiations between the parties are needed if what is desired is to be achieved.

Here we experienced many of Member Saweståhl's pirouettes regarding the issue. Both in his main speech and in the exchange of remarks just now, we did not hear Saweståhl say what is the core, that is to say that during the night to Tuesday, Israel broke the ceasefire. One can discuss the transgressions that occurred earlier, but there was a ceasefire that was also extended in a number of steps. Then Israel broke it.

Now the bombs are flying over Gaza again. Now the tanks are rolling back into Gaza. The question is why the Swedish government, unlike other governments, is unable to say that it was Israel that broke the ceasefire and that one condemns Israel's actions. It is not enough to merely state that one would like to return to a situation where there was a ceasefire. We need to ensure that there is talk and a serious discussion.

As Saweståhl was in, the Israeli government is currently trying to survive domestically. That is why they set up two completely opposing goals. They say they will bring the hostages home but bomb the place where the hostages are located. Most understand that it means that the hostages will not come home alive to their relatives but in body bags.

Furthermore, this leads to all the children who are dying in Gaza. It fills our feeds. It also leads to a halt of transports of food, water, and medicines. The situation is appalling. That we agree on, but we must manage to point out Israel's responsibility in all of this.

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

Fredrik Saweståhl (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Håkan Svenneling for the questions and an engaged speech.

I believe we share the great commitment. Right now, the reality on the ground is catastrophic. It would have been desirable if it had not reached this phase. We want to do everything we can from the Swedish and European side to get the parties back to the negotiating table. A new ceasefire must be put in place. One cannot continue in this way.

What we are not going to talk about, however, is whether the hostages should be released; that is what it is. That is the core of all of this. As long as that does not happen, it will trigger and provide excuses for parts of the Israeli establishment to commit errors. But just as I said in the previous exchange, the responsibility for the ceasefire being broken lies with many parties. It is very rare in this conflict for it to be one party's fault when two or many parties are involved.

October 7 is, of course, in all essentials a cause of everything that has happened since then. Domestic political problems in Israel contribute to making it even worse. What has happened now is due to the fact that both sides, in short, have behaved very badly. I distribute the responsibility among several.

However, we are clear that the ceasefire must be put in place. The parties must negotiate with each other. Hostages must be released. Humanitarian access must be guaranteed. And Israel must take responsibility to ensure that the civilian population is not affected to the extent that it is.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! I can only state that several of the positions that Saweståhl is now presenting as the government's are positions that we from the opposition side have demanded, but the government has not managed to deliver during the entire war, genocide, that we have seen since October 7. I am fundamentally very pleased that one has finally arrived at things such as wanting a permanent ceasefire and a much clearer process.

The problem remains: The Israeli government is not interested in achieving peace in this situation. Netanyahu's far-right government wants to survive by remaining in the narrative of violence so that he can avoid a new election, avoid losing power, and avoid responsibility and trials both in Israel and in the ICC for the acts he has committed.

The government constantly shifts the narrative elsewhere – back to Hamas. Hamas is responsible for a lot of parts, but they conveniently forget to talk about the things that Israel is responsible for. For example, we have heard nothing about the Palestinian prisoners in Saweståhl's statement and the exchange of remarks. This shows how this government is unable to find the balance of international law and how they are unable to stand up and point the way forward.

I would therefore like to ask about this. How does Member Saweståhl view the Palestinian prisoners, who in many cases have been humiliated in various forms? In many cases, it has been healthcare personnel and managers of different hospitals who have been arrested by Israel and held in Israeli prisons under torture-like conditions. It is also known that the occupation means that, for example, children in the West Bank are covered by one legislation while Israeli children are covered by another legislation. These are issues we must talk about in order to manage to find our way back to the balance that I believe Sweden has previously stood for.

In conclusion, I hope that we can achieve a new tone in the Swedish Riksdag and that we manage to meet between the opposition and the government. We will see how it goes in tonight's debate.

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

Fredrik Saweståhl (M)

Madam Speaker! I believe everyone wants a pleasant and civil tone of conversation in the Swedish Riksdag. It is at least not my party that has members who stand and chant things at demonstrations. The member may take that up with his own party members.

Regarding the question of the way forward, we are very clear. The international law solution to this is not only to achieve a ceasefire but also to build a long-term peace based on a two-state solution. The Palestinian people deserve to live in peace, freedom, and security and in a democracy that respects human rights. They have not been able to do so because of their own oppressors and because of Israel. See there – we manage to distribute blame.

However, we are not prepared to be one-sided, but we stand by the traditionally Swedish, balanced line that it is a two-state solution that applies. Both sides must take their responsibility. The forces that absolutely must not be part of a future solution are the forces that caused the entire catastrophe that has now hit the Palestinians and the murdered Israelis, namely Hamas and their allies, who are murderers and terrorists.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Saweståhl, for the contribution. It was clarifying to hear and clear on many points. I am, above all, very happy to hear the clear support for a two-state solution.

Then we come to this matter of how one interprets different things – it concerns, among other things, certain narrow interpretations. There is only one single interpretation that can be made of the expression "from the river to the sea"; we are, after all, to use Swedish here in the speaker's chair. It is an expression that has not only been used by Palestinian representatives. Irgun used the same expression in the 1920s. The Zionist poet Zeev Jabotinsky wrote about this. Likud used it in the 70s in its election campaign and spoke of "from the sea to the river". We have seen different variants coming from the two right-wing ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich – variants which, I believe, are even coarser than the interpretations that I believe member Saweståhl attributes to the Palestinian movement.

There is a lot of talk about the Palestinian leadership and that it must be replaced in order for a sustainable peace to be possible. But I wonder what kind of demands Member Saweståhl places on the Israeli government when representatives of Israeli leaders speak in the same way. I have not heard a single condemnation from Member Saweståhl regarding Ben-Gvir's and Smotrich's statements in the same spirit as "from the river to the sea." So I wonder: Why does Member Saweståhl not mention that Israel or Israeli representatives make the same type of statements, which definitely cannot be interpreted in two ways?

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

Fredrik Saweståhl (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Jacob Risberg, for the questions!

The interpretation one can make of "from the river to the sea", regardless of which of the sides says this, is that one side should have all the land and the other side no land. It is just as wrong if it comes from one party as if it comes from the other, because it undermines the possibility of building a functioning two-state solution. If one side is to have all the land, then the other side gets no land; it is quite logical. Therefore, it is wrong to act in that way and to express oneself in that way.

We are clear in our criticism of the Israeli government and regarding what demands we have of them. Our demands of them are that they must ensure that humanitarian access functions in Gaza, that the situation in the West Bank is not escalated, and that they address the settler violence and, overall, the settlement policy, which is fundamentally wrong and for decades has undermined Israel's reputation in the world. We are very clear on that; there is nothing strange about it.

Then there is a difference. There are two types of leadership on the Palestinian side. One is what we have in Gaza. No one can defend Hamas or the other terror movements that oppress the people there. When it comes to the Palestinian leadership in the West Bank, the president was elected democratically once. It is starting to be many years ago – he probably has the world's longest mandate period, one must conclude. This is a problem, and it needs to be addressed and handled so that we get a democratic development there.

Israel is a functioning democracy and a rule of law state. The current government can very well be voted out at any time, at the next election, for example. It is not quite the same – we are comparing apples and pears a bit when we talk about how these situations look.

Both sides have a responsibility to ensure that we move forward and to perhaps support each other in future attempts to create democracy.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answer! I realize that I am not getting any condemnation of statements from Israeli leaders where they use the same expressions – it is regrettable, I think.

I simply turn the page and move on to another issue, namely something the member said in his speech: that the settlement policy must cease. I am very glad that you, Fredrik Saweståhl, think so.

The International Court of Justice issued a statement last year which also stated that the settlements must cease and that the settlers must move from the occupied area. It is an extremely clear statement, but it is not only about demands on how Israel should act regarding this, but also about how the rest of the world should act. One of the things the rest of the world is urged to do is to in no way, either politically or economically, support the settlement policy or the settlements.

My question to the member is therefore quite simply: In what way can Sweden end the economic support to, for example, settlements? We still see the import of goods from settlements, such as wines from the Golan Heights. Is this something that the member is prepared to stop in order to thereby live up to the International Court of Justice's opinion that we should not economically support the settlement policy?

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

Fredrik Saweståhl (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Jacob Risberg, for the questions!

We can note that Israel once, in 2005, dismantled all settlements in Gaza and completely withdrew from the area to hand it over to the Palestinian side. At that time, there was a hope of finally being able to build a functioning Palestinian state. This collapsed quite quickly and resulted in Hamas's oppression. This shows that there are still forces in Israel that can actually deliver that type of policy if they are given the opportunity. It is up to the Israeli voters to decide that.

Our position is crystal clear regarding this. The settlement policy is incorrect and must cease. We have been clear about this in many contexts.

I also want to emphasize that I said it is equally wrong regardless of which side says that they should have all the land between the river and the sea. It is a condemnation directed at both sides.

When it comes to the trade issue, we are not interested in trade boycotts. We are not interested in breaking ties in that way. We are interested in creating a functioning two-state solution, and that requires us to trade with both sides, both Israelis and Palestinians. And that is what we will continue to do.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Madam Speaker! On January 19, just before President Trump was inaugurated, we received a ceasefire. Ceasefire is also interesting given the discussion we are having regarding Ukraine. The ceasefire that had been agreed upon had three phases.

Under six weeks, 33 out of 100 of the hostages, especially women, children and elderly men, would be released. Israel would release approximately 2,000 people whom they had imprisoned. That was the first phase. The second phase would begin to be discussed and negotiated on the 16th day. The idea was that the rest of the hostages would be released and that Israeli forces would withdraw completely from the Gaza Strip. In the third phase, the dead among the hostages would be returned and the reconstruction would begin.

What we have seen are reports from March 3 that Israel planned to cut off electricity to Gaza and threatened to stop all emergency aid. Palestinians were to be forcibly displaced from northern Gaza and a ground operation was to be initiated if Hamas did not agree to the extension of the first phase. This is an entry point to what we are now seeing happen.

It is clear that it is deeply serious that we do not stand up and assert that all parties must adhere to the ceasefire and the agreement that was reached. Israel would also have had pressure from the USA, from us, and from others to fulfill and enter the second phase, but that did not happen. Why?

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

Fredrik Saweståhl (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Kerstin Lundgren, for the questions! I liked the conclusion where I was credited with the power to answer why this is happening at all. I wish I had that power, but I do not.

To go back to the question, we are very clear that the ceasefire that existed should have been extended. We have from the European and Swedish side been clear that we consider that Israel should do what they can to extend the ceasefire. Israel's responsibility is enormously large – for the humanitarian access and to ensure that the civilian population is not affected when the situation now escalates. In that part, there are no differences.

The ceasefire that has been in place is, of course, something that we are positively inclined towards. We wish that the parties return and initiate new negotiations so that it can be resumed. It is reasonable that Israel withdraws from Gaza.

It is completely wrong to engage in population displacements. Let us speak plainly about this as well. That is why I said that the alternative plan for the reconstruction of Gaza coming from President Trump is not even worth commenting on, because one simply cannot act that way. We must build this up in such a way that we are able to respect the rights of the people who live there and who deserve a better future.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Madam Speaker! I do not believe that Member Fredrik Saweståhl has the power to handle the great-power solution in the Middle East. However, it is a question of the Member's assessment of why it occurred.

Israel clearly did not want to proceed with phase two. It has become clear that Israel actually did not like the ceasefire, which was agreed to partly with reference to both Biden and the incoming president Trump. They did not want to leave the Gaza Strip, and phase two would have meant that Israeli forces would leave the Gaza Strip completely. It has become clear that Israel does not see it as a viable path. Instead, they are choking off emergency aid and electricity and threatening with forced displacement. It is clear that we there could see that the ceasefire was about to be broken. Now it is said that Netanyahu gave orders with the support of the USA.

We can reflect on what the member mentioned regarding what effect President Trump's idea – that the Palestinians should be completely expelled from the Gaza Strip and that they would never return – has had. It may have possibly inspired a certain confidence in a development where Gaza is not Palestinian but something else.

I think it is important that we stand up and clearly say this and that we do not do as the member said, that is, do not talk about it. I think it is important to talk about it and to be very clear about what I also heard: Forced displacement is not okay.

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

Fredrik Saweståhl (M)

Madam Speaker! I want to remember that I said it was not worth talking about the plan because it was not serious, rather than that we should not talk about it at all. But it is possible that we can go back and listen to what was said.

It cannot be seen as a serious proposal. However, the member is completely right that this unserious proposal may have inspired forces in Israeli politics to act in the way they later acted. But there we must again be clear that Israel has a one hundred percent responsibility for ensuring that humanitarian access works and that one does not engage in population displacement, cut off electricity or block aid, and that one does what can be done to protect the civilian population.

Naturally, the terrorist organizations also have a responsibility to protect their civilian population. Even though they never take this responsibility, they have one. We distribute this responsibility among many parties, and we strive from the European and Swedish side to return to new negotiations as soon as possible and find solutions that are long-term.

One can, for example, use the plan coming from Egypt and the Arab League to rebuild Gaza in a serious way. It can work and lead to us getting a functioning two-state solution. I will be categorical again. It is, to quote Carl Bildt, the only way's policy. Everything else will fail again and again.

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

Johan Büser (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving to approve the Social Democrats' reservations 1, 8 and 10 in the Committee on Foreign Affairs' report 15 on the situation in Israel and Palestine.

The debate here today takes place under very serious circumstances. A couple of days ago, Israel's government broke the ceasefire, and the people in Gaza have once again been thrown into the horrors of war. Over 1,000 people have already lost their lives.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has said that this is only the beginning. We have also heard statements from the White House press secretary that the gates of hell are opening for all who are against the USA and Israel. This is not merely rhetoric, but it is a warning of even greater suffering and even more destruction.

Not even the relatives of the hostages seem to support Netanyahu's continued warfare. The remaining persons held in Hamas's captivity must be released immediately, but there was a plan for a continued ceasefire. There was a plan to also gradually enter phase two of it.

While other countries, for example France, have been very clear that it is Israel that is now breaking the ceasefire, it is surprisingly quiet from the Swedish government. If one seeks a bourgeois politician who says something truthful and sharp on this issue, one usually has to look to Carl Bildt. He is clear that he considers that Israel deliberately, with the USA's approval, broke the ceasefire because they simply did not want to fulfill the further agreed terms.

Madam Speaker! We must remember that this war is not just about rockets and airstrikes. It is about people, about families struggling to survive under impossible conditions and about children who wake up to the sound of explosions instead of going to school. And it is about a world that all too often turns a blind eye.

At the same time, the violence on the West Bank is escalating. For the first time in two decades, Israeli tanks are rolling through Palestinian communities there.

Settler violence has reached new and frightening levels. Armed settlers attack Palestinian families with almost total impunity. The weapons that Ben-Gvir in the Israeli government has put into the settlers' hands are now being used exactly as intended – to kill and displace Palestinians from their homes.

Mr. Speaker! It was shocking to see the Swedish government, shortly before Christmas, make the decision to withdraw all core funding to the UN agency UNRWA, the organization that can deliver and delivers life-saving aid to Palestinians. It was not only a betrayal of our long tradition of humanitarian support, but it was also a betrayal of our own principles, of the EU and of the UN, but above all, of the Palestinian people.

Just weeks earlier, Sweden and Swedish government representatives stood in the UN and confirmed that UNRWA is indispensable for helping those affected in Palestine. But then the government suddenly shifted and claimed that new Israeli laws meant that the aid still would not be able to reach its destination. This was something that Minister for Development Cooperation Dousa repeated in the chamber just today – that the money for UNRWA still just gets stuck in a bank account.

It is not true. I personally met two managers on a visit to Sweden here in the Riksdag who are also going to meet government representatives. They told me that UNRWA is fully operational. On the West Bank, they provide community services. To Gaza, they provide emergency aid, and they are present in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. They are present in many different ways. The money comes in via Jordanian bank accounts. The justifications the government gave for ending the support to UNRWA are simply not valid.

Mr. Speaker! UNRWA does indeed reach those who need the help, and now we stand alone as the only EU country refusing to support UNRWA. I find that distressing.

For 20 years, the Ecumenical Companion Program has protected Palestinian schoolchildren from settler attacks. The destruction of Palestinian property has been documented, and protection has been offered to shepherds who have been threatened by armed settlers. Over 400 Swedes have participated in this work.

Now the government is also withdrawing this support. Sida has itself confirmed that it is due to the government's direction for the new policy.

What does the withdrawal of that support mean in practice? Well, it means that more Palestinian children must go to school in fear and that families sleep with their shoes on, ready to flee at any moment. It means that 13-year-old Masa wakes up to settlers forcing their way into her family's tent and hitting her sleeping brothers. This is the reality on the ground, and instead of standing up for the most vulnerable, the government has chosen to abandon these people.

Mr. Speaker! The destruction of Palestinian communities is accelerating. Thousands of new settler homes are being approved. Palestinian villages are being erased from the map. Right-wing Christians in the USA speak of how Trump is elected to bless and take over what remains of the West Bank.

Outside Gaza, the trucks are standing and waiting, stopped from entering with emergency aid by the Israeli government. The government in Israel makes it clear through its actions: It is not only fighting Hamas. It is fighting the existence of the Palestinian people.

How does the rest of the world react to all these violations of international law? Yes, many countries lean back and do not respond at all. It is silent. Sweden has not only been passive and silent, but the Swedish government has in many cases indirectly or sometimes directly chosen to side with the occupying power over international law.

By withdrawing support for UNRWA, we are not only turning our backs on the Palestinians. We are also undermining the two-state solution. Thus, the Swedish right-wing government contributes to making peace less likely, not more likely.

If we say we support Israel's right to exist within secure and recognized borders, which we Social Democrats do, we must also support Palestine's right to do the same. But the occupation and settlement expansion make, as the situation is right now, a Palestinian state impossible.

Mr. Speaker! What should Sweden then do?

Firstly, we must immediately resume and strengthen our support for UNRWA. Humanitarian aid is not just a budget item. It is a moral obligation.

Secondly, we must restore the support for the Ecumenical Companion Programme. No children should have to risk their lives to go to school.

For the third, we must work to ensure that the EU pauses its association agreement with Israel until Israel respects human rights and international law.

For the fourth, we should ban the sale of settler products in Sweden. The government must definitely not serve settler wines at its official dinners, which have occurred in the recent past.

For the fifth, we must offer medical assistance to Palestinian civilians from both Gaza and the West Bank. When hospitals are bombed and medicines run out, Sweden must act. I note that Karolinska University Hospital will receive burn victims from North Macedonia after the horrific nightclub fire. I think that is excellent, but why can the Swedish government not also comply with the request to receive patients in distress from Palestine?

For the sixth, we must acknowledge reality for what it is. If international courts speak of the risk of a genocide, we must act accordingly and work strongly against it. Everyone who has committed war crimes must be held accountable, and Sweden must support these processes and recognize the legitimacy of international law.

This is not a time for hesitation. This is a time to show leadership. Where is the previously strong Swedish voice when it comes to the Middle East and international law? I do not hear it.

Mr. Speaker! I stand here today in the Riksdag's rostrum because I refuse to look away or remain silent. We Social Democrats refuse to let this passive government be the only voice for Sweden. We refuse to meet the suffering of the Palestinian people with indifference.

Sweden was once a nation that stood up for international law and human rights. That is the Sweden I believe in. That is the Sweden we must fight for. Our work must continue – for peace, for solidarity and for all people's equal value.

(Applause)

In this speech, Björn Petersson and Linnéa Wickman (both S) agreed.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The long-standing conflict between Israel and Palestine continues to challenge the pursuit of peace and justice in the Middle East.

The Christian Democrats stand by the conviction that a sustainable solution can only be achieved through a negotiated two-state solution where Israel and Palestine exist side by side within secure and recognized borders.

It is therefore with great sadness that I note that phase two of the agreement on a ceasefire now appears to have come to nothing. After the release of hostages ceased, the fighting in Gaza has, unfortunately, resumed. The situation in Gaza is thus again acute and requires immediate restraint from all involved parties.

The ongoing violence has caused death and unimaginable suffering for Palestinian civilians. In parallel, it is estimated that 24 living Israelis remain as hostages in Gaza, according to the latest figures. Additionally, the remains of 35 deceased hostages remain there.

I therefore want to urge all parties to show restraint and take responsibility to stop this escalation. The international community must work to achieve a lasting ceasefire and create conditions for a resumed peace process. A long-term solution is achieved through negotiations; therefore, all actors must return to the negotiating table with a genuine will to find a just and sustainable solution for both Israeli and Palestinian civilians.

In the first phase of the ceasefire, Israel accepted a deal that meant that several hundred people – including life-sentenced murderers and perpetrators of violence – were released in exchange for bringing home 33 of the abducted Israelis held hostage. Difficult decisions have therefore been made, and trade-offs have been made. This can happen again, and this raises hopes for a resumed ceasefire.

Mr. Speaker! After a two-month-long much-needed ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, Gaza's civilian population has once again begun to be used as human shields. Hamas showed on October 7, 2023, that they are not a serious potential peace partner. They reminded the world of their true nature: a terrorist organization whose uncompromising goal is to wipe out the State of Israel. This war has been a total humanitarian tragedy entirely unnecessarily. Hamas has held an entire people hostage in Gaza while simultaneously trying to massacre another.

In a time when propaganda images and AI-generated videos are used to shape the narrative surrounding the conflict in the Middle East, real, diplomatic solutions are required to achieve a lasting peace. The international community must move from passive observation to active action.

The historical normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab states – Abraham Accords – show that peace is a possibility when pragmatism and mutual recognition prevail. These agreements can serve as a basis for expanding cooperation and creating new conditions for stability in the region.

At the same time, the Gulf states' engagement is crucial. Countries such as the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia have both economic and political power and weight to influence the conflict. Their efforts can contribute to easing tensions, enabling humanitarian aid, and leading the parties toward new negotiations.

Egypt's plan for Gaza is an important piece of the puzzle. It aims to achieve a ceasefire and, in the long run, create a new political order. Egypt's historical role as a mediator should be strengthened, and the country's proposals need support from more actors to become a reality. The Arab League also needs to adopt a new way of acting. Condemnations and resolutions are not enough. Concrete actions are required to ensure that a peace process is not only initiated but also completed.

We find ourselves at a crossroads. Either we let the conflict continue in a spiral of violence, or we gather the forces that want to see a change and who are building a path toward peace. The answer lies not in AI-generated narratives but in diplomacy, leadership, and real compromises.

Mr. Speaker! In the UN General Assembly, 154 resolutions have been directed against Israel between the years 2015 and 2023, while 71 resolutions have dealt with all other countries in the world combined. In 2024 alone, the UN General Assembly adopted 17 resolutions against Israel and only 6 about the rest of the world: one each on North Korea, Iran, Syria, Myanmar, Russia, and the USA. Personally, I find it difficult to claim that this is exactly how the world looks. The statistics cannot solely be due to the fact that the conflict between Israel and Palestinian actors is one of the world's most difficult. No one can claim that there are no other conflicts that at least deserve significantly more attention than they receive today. It is rather due to the fact that many of the countries that drive and vote through these resolutions have a long history of political and ideological hostility towards Israel. These countries are often dictatorships that have an extremely questionable view on human rights and who actively persecute dissenters, deny women basic rights, and silence the media.

For all of us who defend the rules-based world order, the UN is a central institution. The UN's role in upholding international law and promoting peace is crucial. However, there is an obvious risk that the UN loses its legitimacy if its actions are perceived as one-sided and politicized, and it is a situation that lies in everyone's interest to avoid.

I can understand that Israel is dissatisfied. We have seen how UNRWA premises have been used to hold parts of the hostages. We have seen that heads of teachers' unions in both Gaza and Lebanon have simultaneously held leading roles in Hamas and that Hezbollah's weapons depots and tunnels in Lebanon have been located at Unifil positions.

Mr. Speaker! In the Middle East, we otherwise see glimmers of light in the form of a fragile ceasefire in Lebanon and that the Assad regime in Syria has fallen. In Lebanon, we see that Hezbollah's and Iran's grip on the country has weakened, and the era when Lebanon functioned as a pawn in foreign powers' games can, at best, be on its way to an end. In Syria, Bashar al-Assad's time in power has ended, but the country's future is still uncertain. The Syrian people deserve a future free from dictatorship and destructive Iranian and Russian influence. It is, however, clear that not least Christians, Alawites, and other religious minorities still risk being subjected to persecution and marginalization in the unstable situation that prevails.

The Iranian people are persecuted by their own government and its tool of terror – the Revolutionary Guard – which arrests, tortures, and oppresses its own inhabitants while simultaneously arming virtually all terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East. They carry out arbitrary arrests of foreign citizens and have planned murders of Swedish citizens here in Sweden. They support Russia in the war against Ukraine, and Shahed drones rain down daily over Ukrainian cities. Despite its weakened position, however, the Iranian regime continues to try to create problems, not least for the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank.

It is the Christian Democrats' view that Israel must seriously address the unacceptable settlement violence in the West Bank and cease the expansion of settlements. The settlements violate international law and undermine the possibilities of reaching a two-state solution. A negotiated two-state solution, where Israel and Palestine coexist side by side, is and remains the only sustainable path toward peace.

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

Johan Büser (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank Member Berntsson for speaking about the settlement policy as an obstacle to peace.

We Social Democrats believe that the association agreement must be terminated as long as Israel does not respect international law and the law of nations. We Social Democrats also believe that a trade boycott of goods from occupied territories must occur. The government is more of the opinion that it should be noted, and that this should be avoided, because the settlement policy is an obstacle to peace and the two-state solution.

We do, however, see the problems and the ambivalence surrounding maintaining this. Even at the Government Offices, wines from occupied territory have been served in the recent past. The Government also condemns the settlement policy – just as has been said previously in text and word. Given what many members sometimes state here in the Riksdag and what has been stated by the right-wing parties, the Government's position does not always feel fully anchored within the different parties.

For example, member Berntsson's party colleague Camilla Brodin, group leader for Kristdemokraterna, posted a picture on March 1 in her social media of a bottle of Mount Hermon red wine from the occupied Golan Heights. Above the picture she wrote: ”In a world where much is shaking, where everything that previously was obvious is no longer so. Was it obvious for me this week at dinner!”

I would like to ask Member Berntsson what he thinks about his group leader's actions. What position does Berntsson hold regarding these wines? Is it that goods from settlers should be avoided, as the government argues, or is it completely okay to consume wines in such a way and furthermore advertise them, as Member Brodin?

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Büser for the question and for highlighting our very clear position regarding how we view the settlement policy that Israel pursues. It is definitely a major problem and a direct obstacle to moving forward with peace negotiations, which must be the goal.

I received a question about wine from the Golan Heights and about my position on it. I must inform Member Büser that I am an abstainer and never drink any alcohol at all. I have never bought a bottle of wine in my entire life. I do not think it helps in this situation.

The question concerned how my group leader has positioned themselves on the issue. This is a decision that the individual themselves needs to make. It is very important for the government that products from occupied areas are labeled, and I perceive that has been the case in this instance. Then it is up to each individual to make their own decisions on the matter.

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

Johan Büser (S)

Mr. Speaker! I believe it is important that one, as a representative of the Swedish Riksdag and for a party that claims to represent international law and international law, does not act in a way that directly violates international law. If one consumes goods from occupied territory, it should be criticized. If I were to start consuming a wine from occupied territory in Ukraine that Russia has produced, I would rightly receive a great deal of criticism.

When there is an international law, we members should adhere to it. It doesn't matter whether one is an absolutist or not; it can be about any commodity. I think it becomes problematic when we have members who act in such a way.

We Social Democrats say that dialogue with Israel is of course good. However, we have seen that Israel flagrantly violates international law, and that must have consequences. Therefore, we say that we want a trade boycott against goods from occupied territories. We also want to stop the association agreement so that Israel cannot benefit from trade while simultaneously committing war crimes. It is a very important principle.

My question to Magnus Berntsson was posed against the background of how I perceive the government's position. It is clearly stated that one is opposed to the settlement policy and that one sees the settlements as a threat to peace and to a two-state solution. At the same time, we have a group leader for one of the three government parties who posts pictures of goods from occupied land and says that one should enjoy them. I think it is tasteless, inappropriate, and sloppy.

My question to Magnus Berntsson was what he himself thinks about a Member of Parliament sharing that type of imagery. What position does Berntsson hold? Is it okay to consume as one wants, or is it de facto an obstacle to peace to consume this type of goods?

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member again for the question.

At the core, there is a difference in the view on how we best have a dialogue with the state of Israel in this case. Is it better to have an association agreement and recurring association councils where we discuss issues that we do not view in the same way, or is it better to freeze this? Some parties want it to be completely terminated.

The government and my party have been clear that we believe more in the path of dialogue – we believe that it is the way forward.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! We have debated Israel's occupation of Palestine many times during this parliamentary term. The last time we did so was in February in connection with the foreign policy debate. At that time, I asked a question to Magnus Berntsson regarding the Ecumenical Companion Program in Palestine and Israel, which has international observers on the ground in the middle of the conflict to do what Magnus Berntsson called for in his speech: stop the escalation.

The Ecumenical Companion Program is not just any program. It is a program led by the Swedish Christian Council, which has sent down over 400 Swedish volunteers to be on site and contribute to peace. This has been done at the request of the World Council of Churches.

Story after story speaks of how people feel safer thanks to the companions' presence. They, for example, lead children to and from schools and are near places where settlers harass Palestinians. One has also worked very actively to conduct different types of church visits – in 2023, 195 church visits were made to 56 different churches.

The question I asked Magnus Berntsson in February, which he probably remembers, was about why the government, through its agency Sida, withdrew the support for the companion program. Then, one and a half months ago, it sounded like Magnus Berntsson wanted to take the question to his government, discuss this, and get back with a decision regarding the companion program.

So far, the accompaniment program has solved the financing for this year. Efforts have been able to be increased and an additional group has been established in South Hebron Hills, which is one of the areas where we see the settler violence increasing right now. Moving forward, however, there is no funding that ensures that the Christian Council of Sweden can send accompanists.

The government needs to clarify this and provide positive news so that there is an international presence to stop the escalation.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Håkan Svenneling, for the question!

I am not surprised that the question is recurring. However, I want to clarify one thing regarding how the question was posed. Håkan Svenneling said that the government made the decision through its agency, but that is not quite how decisions are made in Swedish administration. The government provides frameworks, and the agencies then make decisions. It is Sida that has made the decision and made prioritizations based on the framework that exists.

I have, however, nothing to object to regarding Member Svenneling's description of the Ecumenical Companion Program. It has had – and has – played an important role. There are also more funders than Sweden.

Regarding the question of whether it is possible to find other ways concerning the Swedish side's participation, in the MENA strategy or something similar, I have not received any new answers that I can share at this moment.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! It was disappointing to hear that there are no new updates at this time. One must nevertheless keep in mind that it is the government's changed framework, as Magnus Berntsson calls it, that is the reason we are left with this consequence.

There was previously a Palestine strategy through which the Ecumenical Companion Program received support for more than 20 years. The Palestine strategy was removed and replaced with a Middle East strategy where there are goals that it shall contribute to increased peace and reduced conflict. Thanks to the Christian Democrats, there are also goals that Christian minorities in the Middle East shall be highlighted. The Companion Program fulfills this, but the agency's decision means that its funding is withdrawn.

Just as I said in February, I want to remind that the Christian Democrats actively criticized this program through Magnus Berntsson's representative, and therefore I feel that the Christian Democrats have a clear responsibility to tell the authority that the escort program does something important and contributes to reducing the escalation in the area. Right now, it feels like the member Magnus Berntsson wants to reduce the escalation and has a strategy that says he wants to, but lacks measures that lead in that direction. Therefore, we will continue to nag about the escort program until you come with other messages than those we received in February and unfortunately also receive today.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Let me nevertheless point out to Member Svenneling that we have independent agencies in Sweden that make decisions. It is true that we changed strategies in the rules presented to the agency in that the Palestine strategy was merged into the Middle East strategy. In the Palestine strategy, very many different organizations received side support. I believe it was around 218 of them. It was therefore a matter of assessing and comparing all these organizations based on what was needed according to the guidelines in the new strategy.

I have, as I have said, no new information to give, but I want to emphasize that I have not criticized the companion program.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I want to raise the trade issue again because it is important. Once again we hear that the settlements must cease and that they are an obstacle to a two-state solution. The International Court of Justice was very clear about what is required. The settlements must be dismantled and the settlers moved from there. It is also required that the rest of the world does not politically or economically support the settlements.

Member Saweståhl said that one advocates for trade over boycott. But goods from settlements are not included in the association agreement and have no customs exemptions. To trade goods from settlements, what is that if not to economically support settlements?

To return to Member Büsers' question: How can continued trade with goods from settlements be permitted when the International Court of Justice says that we should not economically support settlements? I cannot reconcile the logic. Can Member Berntsson explain?

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Risberg for the question.

We must place the question in a larger context as we are talking about trade. Sweden does not handle trade on its own, but it is something we handle through our cooperation in the European Union. It is the European Union that has the association agreement with Israel and actually all other trade relations.

In recent days, it has become popular to advocate for boycotts in both directions. I still maintain, like my colleague Saweståhl, that trade is a better way forward. Making ourselves dependent on one another instead of boycotting each other leads to more positive end results.

The question belongs at the EU level, and conversations were held between EU leaders and Israeli representatives in the association council that was held just a few weeks ago.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Berntsson for the answer, even though I did not receive an answer on how trade with settlement goods cannot go against the International Court of Justice's statement on not economically supporting settlements. But it seems that we do not get any answer to that question today.

I move on to another economic issue. During the last 15 months, approximately 436,000 homes, 2,300 schools, preschools and universities, and 30 hospitals have been damaged or destroyed. In addition, other buildings, electricity infrastructure, water pipes, roads and other things have been damaged. I believe we are beginning to agree more and more that various war crimes have been committed as so much civil infrastructure has been destroyed and so many civilians have died in this horrific conflict.

I heard in Member Berntsson's speech that the countries around Israel will have a great responsibility to contribute to the reconstruction of Gaza. I definitely believe that. But what demands does the Member envision that can be placed on Israel regarding specifically the reconstruction? It is still Israel's bombs that have destroyed these homes, schools, and hospitals. What demands will the Member be involved in placing on Israel to contribute purely financially to the reconstruction of the totally bombed-out Gaza?

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Let me emphasize that Israel has a great responsibility, also economically, to help with the reconstruction. But we cannot place all the responsibility for what has happened in Gaza on the Israeli government. Everything began with a terror attack from Hamas, and it was they who broke the ceasefire.

I believe that we must reach a point where we find a way to a much broader dialogue that leads to peace negotiations and not just to a reconstruction of what has been destroyed. We must find ways to common ground so that the countries can live side by side in the future. I believe that both Israel and the neighboring countries have a major role to play in this necessary normalization process.

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

Rasmus Giertz (SD)

Mr. Speaker! With reference to the ongoing cooperation between the Sweden Democrats and the government parties, the intention in our policy has in large parts gained traction. But since the Sweden Democrats want to go further than the government and the committee when it concerns military cooperation with Israel, we have a reservation in this regard. I therefore begin by moving for approval of reservation 16.

Mr. Speaker! On October 7, 2023, Hamas carried out the worst massacre of Jews since World War II. It was a bestial attack that was primarily aimed at civilian targets in Israel. It was civilian men, women, and children who were inhumanly murdered, tortured, raped, and kidnapped. Those held hostage who have lived and still live in Hamas's captivity have since lived in constant terror.

Israel has, as can be expected of a democratic state that has a people-anchored defense, responded militarily. Israel has both a right, a duty, and an obligation to secure its population, its territory, and its existence to ensure that something similar does not happen again. For the Sweden Democrats, Israel's right to self-defense is a self-evident fact.

Mr. Speaker! It is important to remind that Iran bears a great responsibility for the negative developments in the region. Gaza is no exception. Iran, together with Russia and China, constitutes the axis of evil of our time. The wars in the Middle East have largely been a result of Iran's involvement. Iran has actively assisted Hamas and Hezbollah and provided support for the Houthi rebels in Yemen. Furthermore, Iran has carried out attacks against Israel with long-range weapons in a manner that is unparalleled in the region.

The Middle East's only functioning democracy, Israel, is the country that most clearly has taken up the fight against the Islamist theocracy in Iran and its proxy warriors. Israel has a moral and legal right, as a home for the Jewish people after the Holocaust following centuries of persecution, to defend itself against the world's worst terrorist organizations.

Israel successfully defends not only its own country and people against these Islamist terror sects that have as their stated goal to annihilate the Jewish state, but Israel also stands at the forefront in the defense of the free world against dictatorship, oppression, and Islamism. It is absolutely fundamental that Israel has our clear support in its defense against this terror and that all democratic forces stand behind Israel's right to self-defense.

Mr. Speaker! The humanitarian situation in Gaza is very serious, with great suffering. Even though Israel has taken extensive measures to minimize the number of civilian casualties, the death toll has been high. The negotiated ceasefire that came into effect on January 19 was therefore absolutely necessary to achieve a release of hostages and humanitarian access to alleviate the humanitarian situation in Gaza.

It is therefore devastating that the ceasefire was broken earlier this week, as a result of Hamas not following the agreement and returning the remaining hostages. In the agreement between Hamas and Israel with the USA as a mediating party, it has been clear that the hostages must be released. Hamas has then refused to complete the release and the prisoner exchanges.

If Hamas does not release the hostages, the ceasefire will of course not hold either. At the same time, Israel, as the democratic state in this, must of course show restraint in its response. There are still 59 hostages, of whom 35 are believed to be dead, who are in Hamas's captivity. It has now been 530 days since they were ruthlessly kidnapped from their homes. We have heard testimonies from released hostages describing the horrific terror they were subjected to in Hamas's captivity. Civilians, men, women, and children have been subjected to physical and psychological torture and terror.

The most important thing right now is to demand that Hamas complete the release of the hostages, which is also a prerequisite for the ceasefire to be able to enter the next phase. Demands for restraint must also be made on both sides. One must ensure that humanitarian aid reaches civilians, for it is ultimately they who are caught in the crossfire here.

It is absolutely crucial that the agreement is resumed and implemented so that the hostages can be released immediately and to prevent further suffering and death in Gaza.

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats have for a long time worked to revoke the recognition of Palestine and to move the Swedish embassy to Jerusalem. The hasty recognition of Palestine that the previous, Social Democratic-led government pushed through was a hasty and incorrect decision. It also cannot be seen as representative of Sweden, because the government at that time did not have a parliamentary majority behind it. The decision also lacked a basis in international law, and there is now nothing to indicate that we will see a long-term functioning government in Palestine. It was the wrong decision then, and it has proven to be the wrong decision even today.

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to the reconstruction of Gaza, it is central that Hamas cannot be a part of this and that a state leadership in which Hamas is included cannot be regarded as legitimate. A recognition of Palestine with Hamas in a coalition government has already, since before the terror attack on October 7, been completely excluded for the Sweden Democrats. Even if it is the existence of states and not the composition of the government that is recognized, this is an additional complicating circumstance.

Sweden's previous government should at least, in its recognition, have clearly distanced itself from Hamas and clearly declared that Hamas cannot be seen as a legitimate party in a coalition government. It is also absolutely crucial that the destruction of Hamas infrastructure, such as tunnel systems and weapons depots etc., is a central part of the reconstruction. It is also crucial to ensure that the infrastructure one builds in Gaza is not used for military purposes so that an attack like the one on October 7 never happens again.

All Palestinian groups that want to play a role in Palestine and in the reconstruction of Gaza must distance themselves from violence and terrorism and recognize Israel's right to exist. It is also fundamental that the surrounding Arab countries and Israel are involved in a future reconstruction of Gaza.

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats have for a long time watched with concern how the UN agency UNRWA conducted its work with numerous examples of terror propaganda, antisemitism in school books and collusion with terror organizations. There have been revelations that UNRWA employees participated in the Hamas terror attack on October 7 and regarding the use of UN infrastructure and facilities, where among other things Hamas tunnels have been discovered at UNRWA's headquarters in Gaza. The list can be long.

It is also not reasonable for the UN to have an entirely separate organ for Palestinian refugees when other UN organizations can handle this. Sweden should work to phase out UNRWA and instead transfer its activities to other UN organizations – primarily the UN's main refugee organization UNHCR.

Even though the Sweden Democrats want to see a long-term phase-out of UNRWA, it is important that UNRWA, like other UN organizations, is protected and respected in line with international obligations.

Mr. Speaker! In a world where needs are endless and over 300 million people are in need of humanitarian support, Sweden is one of the world's largest humanitarian donors. For 2025, Sweden is doubling the previous support that went to UNRWA by allocating 800 million kronor to the civilian population in Gaza and in the region. This significantly increased support is now being channeled through actors other than UNRWA. The most important thing right now is that aid and life-saving supplies reach the civilian populations.

Mr. Speaker! The Sverigedemokraternas starting point is always to safeguard Swedish security, especially in the serious global situation we now find ourselves in. We need to significantly strengthen our defense. An increased opportunity for cooperation with Israel would benefit our defense industry and lead to cooperation with a high-tech country that has extensive experience in precisely the weapons systems we need to acquire. Examples of such weapons systems can be found within the air defense area, where Israel, alongside the USA, is a world leader. Space capability and combat vehicles are other areas where Israel is leading and where Sweden needs to make investments.

We cannot rule out the export of war materiel to Israel for the future, something that could strengthen Sweden's defense capability. The committee notes that Sweden has for a long time had a restrictive view on the export of war materiel to Israel. In line with the government's position that it would be the wrong path to introduce a boycott of or sanctions against Israel, the committee rejects proposals for a weapons embargo at the EU level and proposals to recall the defense attaché from Tel Aviv.

We share that assessment and would rather emphasize the opportunities in the defense industry sector.

Several other states in Europe export war materiel to Israel – such as Germany and Italy. According to Sipri, Germany accounted for a total of 29.7 percent of weapon exports to Israel during the years 2013–2023. Italy has, however, stated that it does not intend to enter into new contracts with Israel during the ongoing war in Gaza, but that existing contracts will be fulfilled.

The conflict between Iran and Israel also leads to the terror regime in Tehran being weakened. Since Iran also supports Russia, it also means that Russia is ultimately weakened in Ukraine, which is positive for the security of both Ukraine, Europe, and Sweden.

Sweden has imported war materiel from Israel under both Social Democratic and bourgeois governments. On the other hand, exports have been heavily restricted. This is a contradictory action that has hindered Swedish imports of high-tech weapons from Israel. In the serious global situation we find ourselves in, it is crucial that we cooperate with high-tech and democratic states to strengthen our defense capability.

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

Johan Büser (S)

Mr. Speaker! I actually do not quite know where to begin. We stood here earlier and commented on a group leader in a government party who buys wine from occupied territory. But Member Giertz spends almost a third of his speaking time talking about increased arms exports to Israel – that it could benefit Swedish war materiel exports.

It is an absurd statement, I would like to say, in the wake of international courts having completely ruled Israel's warfare as a clear and flagrant violation of international law and international law.

I am thinking about the human suffering we have seen only since the ceasefire was broken by Israel. The Member of Parliament incorrectly said that it was Hamas that was supposed to have broken the ceasefire, which is not true.

We previously quoted the former Prime Minister Carl Bildt, who was very clear about this and who said that the ceasefire was broken by Israel with the approval of the USA. I believe that is the picture that most people in here share.

I think that this is also noteworthy.

Several countries have also ended, reduced, or stopped their arms exports to Israel, such as Canada, the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands.

What is being raised about UNRWA is incorrect. UNRWA is a UN agency established to handle the Palestinian refugee issue. The Sweden Democrats usually advocate for refugees to have the right to return to their countries, so I believe the member needs to update themselves on UNRWA's mission.

But my questions are actually: What does Member Giertz think about international law? What does Member Giertz think about Israel's warfare? What does Member Giertz think about the two-state solution and how it should be achieved?

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

Rasmus Giertz (SD)

Mr. Speaker! There were many questions. I can begin by agreeing that it is devastating that the ceasefire has now been broken and that it is ultimately the civilians who are caught most in the crossfire. It is a tragedy. But we must remind ourselves why we needed to have a ceasefire in the first place, to begin with.

There was a ceasefire in Gaza before October 7, 2023. Then Hamas committed the worst massacre of Jews since World War II, and since then, Israel has been forced to negotiate with a bloodthirsty terrorist sect that still has not wanted to release those remaining in captivity. There are, as I mentioned in my speech, 59 remaining in captivity – 35 are believed to be dead – who live under completely horrific conditions. It has been clear from the beginning that a prerequisite for the ceasefire was that those taken hostage by Hamas would also be released.

Then I received questions about UNRWA. Sweden has now doubled the support to Gaza and the region for 2025. The absolute most important thing for us is that the supplies reach the civilian population in Gaza. The most important thing is perhaps not who it is that conveys those supplies.

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

Johan Büser (S)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, we can agree that October 7 was a horrific day. Thousands of people were murdered and taken hostage. Many are still held in Hamas captivity. We condemn Hamas, and we naturally condemn all the horrific methods that Hamas has used.

We Social Democrats also demand that the hostage be released immediately. There was a plan in the ceasefire, phase one. Now that phase two was to begin and the remaining part of the hostages could be released, Israel chose to break the ceasefire.

I did not really get an answer on what Member Giertz considers regarding Israel's warfare. It is not in line with international law. I lack comments on that. I also heard no criticism in the speech regarding Israel's warfare.

I would like to ask the member what he actually thinks about the Israeli occupation. The Israeli occupation contributes to misery and to people being displaced from their homes. It also contributes to radicalization so that terror groups and other things can emerge. This is something that we must counteract. In order for us to be able to counteract it, so that people do not have to live in misery and so that people do not join terror sects, which is never justifiable, peace is needed. A two-state solution is needed. People need to be given hope.

In what way do the Sweden Democrats work to ensure that Palestinians and Israelis can live side by side, and how do the Sweden Democrats work for a two-state solution? That is perhaps the most important question I have asked of Member Giertz.

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

Rasmus Giertz (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Then I do not believe that the member listened very carefully to my speech, for I said very clearly that even Israel, as the democratic party in this, needs to show restraint in its response.

Then I do not know if the member has read our motions which are being treated in this report. In motion 2024/25:1437, Israel and Palestine, we propose, among other things, that the Riksdag shall announce to the government that the expansion of settlements must cease and that settler violence must cease. There are no question marks at all regarding that.

The Sweden Democrats are for a two-state solution. Here, we need to be able to hold two thoughts in our heads at the same time. As friends of Israel, we must also be able to criticize specific instances of Israel's actions. I have done that both here in the exchange of remarks and previously from the rostrum. I have clearly stated that Israel must show restraint in its response.

But we must not forget why this conflict and this war is unfolding right now. It is because Hamas carried out the terror attack on October 7, 2023, and kidnapped innocent Israeli civilians.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I often speak of a competition regarding which party on the right wing of the Swedish Riksdag wants to be Israel's best friend. It felt quite clearly as if the member from Sverigedemokraterna took up that fight against other right-wing parties.

It becomes very strange to have a debate when one is, so to speak, not even in agreement about who broke the ceasefire. I believe one should nevertheless keep in mind that it was Israel that broke the ceasefire by starting to bomb in Gaza again. And right now, the tanks and armored vehicles are rolling into Gaza.

Then one can have a lot of criticism against Hamas and their actions, but they have de facto followed the first phase of the ceasefire in terms of returning the Israeli hostage, and one expects to have negotiations.

When one hears the member, one also wonders if he thinks that Israel has responded with restraint, given the restrained response he seeks from the Israeli side. It is now 50,000 dead. In just the last two days, at least 1,000 people have died. Is that a restrained response?

Let me move on to what the member wishes to do, that is to increase arms exports and arms imports to and from Israel. It is the Left Party, which the member correctly spoke of, that is completely against it. We have instead submitted proposals to introduce arms embargos.

The problem with what the member proposes is that it violates the International Court of Justice's, ICJ's, ruling in the case of South Africa against Israel regarding how third countries should act. One must not support Israel's occupation of Palestine. It would be a violation of international law. That is why we say that Sweden cannot have any arms trade with Israel in the way the member obviously advocates.

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

Rasmus Giertz (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The member initially mentioned a competition to be Israel's best friend. I would be proud to win that competition.

In the question regarding whether it was Israel that broke the ceasefire through bombings in Gaza, Israel would not have had to act or respond at all if Hamas had not carried out the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust on October 7, 2023. And Israel would not have had to respond now if Hamas had fulfilled its part of the agreement and released the 59 remaining hostages.

The Speaker also mentions the number of people who have died in Gaza since the ceasefire was broken. I can only agree that it is a tragedy. All civilian victims are a tragedy, regardless of side. But one must take into account that Hamas uses civilians as shields. They hide under hospitals and schools and use these civilian buildings as military infrastructure. In that respect, one should probably be a bit careful about accusing Israel. It is actually Hamas that is also holding Gaza's population hostage in this.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to the last point, it is Israel that maintains a blockade against Gaza. It is a blockade that has been maintained for a long time, but especially since 2006 when they withdrew from the settlements they had but then established a blockade that no one has been able to pass through. It feels a bit strange that it is argued that one must bomb hospitals and schools because Hamas is under or in the vicinity of them.

I still have not received an answer regarding the arms exports and the arms imports. We are talking about weapons that the member highlighted as incredibly good. It is about the fact that they are what is called battle-proven, i.e., tested on people, in this case Palestinians. That makes those weapons considered extra suitable to purchase.

Shall we really violate the International Court of Justice's ruling because we want these weapons? Shall we violate their ruling so that Swedish weapons can be used to kill Palestinian children? That will be the consequence of what the member proposes.

It feels difficult to take these words seriously, that one wants to see a ceasefire and the hostages free, when one rattles off demand after demand, such as restoring the recognition of Palestine as a state and moving Sweden's embassy in Israel to Jerusalem; I interpreted it as that it was not about elevating the consulate general in Jerusalem to an embassy.

The Sweden Democrats are also approaching Israel's extreme right. Should this be interpreted as the Sweden Democrats wanting to see a ceasefire and wanting the hostages freed? Neither of these will lead to achieving that. Instead, the Sweden Democrats are part of a package of parties that support Israel's occupation of Palestine and the far-right government we see in Israel that chooses to break the ceasefire and continue the genocide in Gaza.

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

Rasmus Giertz (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Does the member then mean that Germany – where a full 29.7 percent of their arms exports go to Israel – and also Italy are violating international law? It would have been interesting to get an answer to that.

For the Sweden Democrats, it is clear that Israel is a democratic state fighting a defensive war against Hamas, which on October 7, 2023, committed the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.

It is not strange that we want to trade with a like-minded and democratic country like Israel when we also need to arm our own defense.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! One often hears the Sweden Democrats talk about refugee returns. It has not come up in the speaker's chair today. Therefore, I intend to raise that question. It is a question which, as I understand it, is close to the Sweden Democrats' hearts. This can also be seen in the government's and the Sweden Democrats' joint aid policy, where they highlight precisely synergies between aid and migration to facilitate, among other things, refugee returns.

They also like to talk about helping on-site instead, that is, where the refugees are coming from, precisely to avoid refugee flows arising.

There are now approximately 2 million Palestinian refugees in Jordan, 775,000 Palestinian refugees in the West Bank, barely 500,000 refugees in Lebanon, about the same number in Syria and also 1.3 million refugees in Gaza. These are refugees who live less than two miles away from the place they originally came from.

Two-thirds of Gaza's population simply consists of refugees. Many say that one of the biggest problems in Gaza is that there are so many refugees who have ended up in one and the same place together with the regular population, and that many of Gaza's problems would be solved if the refugees were allowed to return home, that is, to the places they came from, the villages and cities in what is today Israel.

When the Sweden Democrats talk about facilitating the return of refugees, I wonder how the Sweden Democrats intend to act so that Palestinian refugees can also be able to return to their homes.

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

Rasmus Giertz (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is of course welcome if there can be synergies between Swedish aid and return.

Regarding helping on the ground, as Jacob Risberg took up in his reply, I mentioned in my speech that for 2025, Sweden doubles the support that previously went to UNRWA by allocating 800 million kronor to the civilian population in Gaza and in the region. The most important thing there right now is precisely that the aid and the life-saving supplies reach the civilian population. We are truly doing a lot here and now to help refugees on the ground.

For the Palestinian refugees to be able to return to Gaza, it is of course required that there is an end to the war in Gaza. It is very problematic that it is Hamas that rules in Gaza. It is a recognized terrorist organization that carries out attacks against its neighbor, the democratic state of Israel. Hamas must first and foremost be fought, so that Gaza can be rebuilt and so that a democratic and peaceful rule can be established there.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Now it was not about the refugees being able to return to Gaza, but rather about how the approximately 1.3 million refugees who are in Gaza should be able to return to their homes, that is to say the villages and towns that have existed in what is now Israel. But we will drop that question.

Another thing that has been raised here earlier was the ceasefire and the violation of it. There was an agreement between Hamas and Israel that applied during the ceasefire. It is that agreement that has now been broken. It has been broken by Israel by never starting the negotiations for the second phase. They were planned to begin on February 6.

They also killed over 150 Gazans during the ceasefire itself, that is, before the night of Tuesday. They never allowed bulldozers and trucks to enter Gaza, as they said they would do. They broke the agreement over 960 times. They allowed the import of less than 30 percent of the amount of fuel they promised to allow. They severely restricted the evacuation of injured and seriously ill Gazans, in violation of the ceasefire agreement.

He prohibited all Gazans who were stuck in Egypt and abroad from returning to the enclave. He has shut down all imports of food, water, electricity, and fuel since March 2. He arrested 762 Palestinians in February after having released approximately the same number that same month. He killed Palestinian prisoners after their release. He murdered Palestinian hostages in captivity. He restricted the UN agency's work in Gaza, in violation of the humanitarian agreement.

Does Member Giertz still maintain that it was Hamas that broke the ceasefire?

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

Rasmus Giertz (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I want to emphasize once again that there was a ceasefire before Hamas's terror attack on October 7, 2023, and that Israel has since had to negotiate with the bloodthirsty terror group Hamas. There are still 59 hostages, of whom 35 are believed to be dead, in the captivity of Hamas. They are living under appalling conditions. It has been clear from the beginning when the ceasefire began that the hostages must be released unconditionally and immediately. Hamas has not fulfilled its part regarding the release of hostages and the prisoner exchange. I therefore stand by the fact that it was Hamas that broke the ceasefire.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the proposals in the report. It is easy to forget it, so it is good to do it at the beginning.

I also want to start by stating the obvious – or what should be obvious. This is a conflict that one can claim has been ongoing for a thousand years. One can also claim that it has been ongoing for a few hundred years, but the war broke out again in any case when Hamas broke the ceasefire on October 7.

One can also observe that the war would probably end very quickly if Hamas released the hostages. That is, of course, an overarching goal for all democratically minded people. It is incredibly bad that the ceasefire has now been broken. We need to find a new path to peace, freedom, and a sustainable two-state solution.

Mr. Speaker! The State of Israel is a safe haven for the world's Jews. It is both a political necessity and a right for a people who, throughout history, have been subjected to unimaginable suffering and who are currently being subjected to growing antisemitism, both here and in other places in the world. Since October 7, the country has been under attack on several fronts.

The right to defend oneself is fundamental in international law and the UN Charter. At the same time, we, who are the best of friends to Israel, can state that the country's leadership needs to do more, and should have done more, to protect civilians and in that way promote a long-term peace plan in the Middle East.

Mr. Speaker! It was a new chapter in Iran's long-term goal to eradicate Israel and all Jews that began when Hamas and Hezbollah attacked Israel and the Israeli civilian population. Israel's response to this existential threat has been very powerful.

It is a tragedy with every lost civilian life. But a democratic country not only has the right to protect its population but must also do so. All attacks against Hamas targets are legitimate. One must, however, always do what can be done to protect civilians.

We have stood up for Israel's right to self-defense and throughout have emphasized that international rules and humanitarian principles must be followed to protect civilians. Israel showed, for example, restraint in the response to Iran's missile attacks. It feels like it was quite a long time ago, but if you look at the calendar, you see that it was quite recently. Decisive efforts have been made to avoid civilian casualties, but the death tolls have nevertheless been high.

It is only to be stated that the war must come to an end. Hopefully, we can achieve an end not only to this war but also to the conflict by working towards a sustainable two-state solution. The ceasefire that prevailed was incredibly important, but it does not seem as if Hamas wanted the ceasefire to continue. Then they would have released the hostages at a faster pace, and when they did release the hostages, they would not have done so in such a propagandistic manner.

That being a friend of Israel as a nation does not mean that one is a friend of the Israeli government. They are two completely different things. The Israeli government, with Netanyahu at its head, is at times held hostage by extreme politicians from fringe parties in Israel. They do not always act in a constructive way to achieve a sustainable peace and a sustainable solution. That does not mean that the goal of eradicating Hamas and Hamas's military goals is less important. It rather means that it is more important. If we want a sustainable two-state solution, those elements need to disappear.

It is not possible to have a sustainable two-state solution if Hamas remains. They can never be a part of such a solution. At the moment, the ability to wage war against Israel and threaten Israeli civilians seems to have been significantly limited. In that respect, it must be said that a goal that has been stated with this war from the beginning has, in part, been achieved. That analysis is not only made by me but also by many others.

It is clear that the international community needs to ensure that Hamas does not manage to rebuild a capacity to commit the type of terrorist acts that started this war. We must do everything we can so that Hamas and other terrorist groups will end their activities and release all those held hostage.

It is obvious to everyone that Hamas, by holding hostages, violates international law. Ensuring that the hostages are released is ensuring an end to the war. Hamas bears the greatest responsibility for the war by having started and maintained it and by retaining the hostages.

We have worked from our party together with the government to increase the humanitarian support to Gaza. It is clear that the needs are endless, and it is very good that we have increased the support. There will always be needs that are not met. That is how reality looks. That is how all parts of the aid policy look.

Fundamentally, one must – if one is a friend of Palestine, as we also are – look with much hopefulness and joy at what the government has done when it has increased the humanitarian aid to Palestine. It is morally right to do so. Israel obviously has both a legal and a moral responsibility to ensure that aid gets in. We have, from our side, ensured that there is more aid available.

Mr. Speaker! It is obvious that the settlement policy must cease. It is no new position from us or from the government. What I know is that it is a position that all governments in Sweden have had. Sometimes it sounds as if the opposition wants to paint conflicts that do not exist within this policy area. It is not a particularly constructive way to debate in such a polarized issue.

We continue to advocate for a two-state solution. This means that there needs to be a unified Palestinian government that has control over its own borders. Otherwise, there is no state. This does not, however, mean that one can here and now hand over the responsibility for security entirely to forces that are, for example, controlled by Hamas. Hamas can never be part of the solution.

At some point, a regional responsibility will be needed, and the normalization process between Israel and the Arab states, which was started earlier, must continue. They must be involved and share the responsibility for security. It is not possible here and now to have a Palestinian state with a mandate for strong terrorist organizations. It would lead to the conflict continuing indefinitely, which would not be good for the Palestinian people.

A stabilization of the region also requires that Lebanon controls its territory. One must be able to uphold the Security Council's resolution 1701, which requires that Hezbollah leaves southern Lebanon and lays down its weapons. It is an incredibly important factor if one wants to see a sustainable peace.

Mr. Speaker! The conditions for peace are difficult, but we must not give up. It is in both the interests of the Israelis and the Palestinians that the war comes to an end and that the work for a democratic Palestine, which does not pose a threat to Israel, which constitutes the foundation, gains real momentum.

Finally, I want to emphasize that the ultimate responsibility for the war lies with Hamas and the other terrorist groups that started it. No peace or long-term solution is possible with Hamas's continued existence. Their entire foundation and the entire idea of Hamas is the eradication of Israel, all Israelis, and all Jews, both in Israel and in other places in the world. This makes Hamas an impossible part of a future solution.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Now we are debating again the long-standing occupation of Palestine by Israel and its consequences. This time it occurs after Israel has broken the ceasefire, which means that the genocide has started anew. Every day we are reached by reports of death and destruction, of children who have been murdered and injured, and of families who have once again been forced to flee from their homes. It is a humanitarian catastrophe of enormous proportions, and it is our duty to do everything we can to contribute to a solution.

Nowhere on earth do so many children, so much healthcare personnel, so many journalists and so much UN personnel die as in Gaza. Just yesterday, UNRWA's headquarters was hit, and five employees were killed. From Gaza, no one can flee. In Gaza, everyone is trapped.

To date, at least 50,000 Palestinians have been murdered, and those who have survived have suffered serious physical injuries or carry a deep sorrow over lost loved ones. At the same time, Israel's blockade of Gaza has prevented access to basic necessities such as electricity, water, medicine, and food for all those in distress. Furthermore, the violence and killing in the West Bank have escalated, and hundreds of Palestinians have been murdered by settlers and soldiers in a very short period of time.

As Vänsterpartiet sees it, the situation in Israel and Palestine is completely unacceptable. Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories is contrary to international law and must cease. The settlement policy in the West Bank, the demolitions of Palestinian homes, and the inhumane blockade of Gaza are flagrant violations of international law. We condemn all forms of violence and attacks against civilians, regardless of who carries them out. Violations of international law must always be condemned.

Sweden and the EU must now act more forcefully to put real pressure on Israel to respect international law and end the occupation. It is about using all diplomatic and economic tools at our disposal, including sanctions, to achieve a change.

Vänsterpartiet believes that Sweden should advocate for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza. It took over 500 days, but as recently as last Friday, we finally heard from the government that it wants to see a permanent ceasefire. But we were not allowed to be happy about it; the day before yesterday, the Prime Minister failed to condemn Israel's new attacks against Gaza which have killed over a thousand people. It was therefore Israel that broke the ceasefire. Now the tanks are rolling into Gaza again.

The Swedish government is happy to speak about the Israeli hostage. That is good, because the hostage's situation is likely completely horrific. Several of the hostages have been confirmed dead. But now that the fighting is picking up pace again, criticism is heard once more from the hostages' families. They understand the gravity of the situation and that the probability of their loved ones coming home in body bags has increased. The right-wing extremist Israeli government currently has two conflicting goals: to bring the hostages home and to destroy Hamas.

With the current strategy, none of these goals will be achieved. Instead, the actual goal of Netanyahu's government is to remain in power and avoid prosecution for the crimes they have committed, both in Israel and against international law. That the most extreme of the extremes, Itamar Ben-Gvir, returns to the government coalition while the bombings of Gaza have started anew shows how the extreme settler movement sets the agenda for the right-wing extremist government.

When the Swedish government tries to navigate and be Israel's friend, problems arise. The problem for the Swedish government is that the Israeli government does not represent its people. Before Hamas's horrific attack, mass demonstrations took place against the judicial reform that the right-wing extremist Israeli government was trying to push through. Now that the families of the hostages are repeatedly ignored and neglected by Netanyahu's right-wing extremist government, the protests in Israeli society are becoming even louder. I just read news that they were attacked yesterday while demonstrating, when a car drove into and injured several of those who organized the protests.

When Israel now breaks the ceasefire and resumes the genocide of Palestinians, it does not have the support of the ordinary Israeli citizen. This war is Netanyahu's, Smotrich's and Ben-Gvir's war to be re-elected. The extreme right depends on violence to create its political narrative.

Netanyahu's far-right government lacks a mandate for its war and therefore has no legitimacy. It is a minority government that the people in Israel want to replace in the next election. They have shown time and again that they do not care. They are prepared to sacrifice both Palestinian and Jewish lives. There was a ceasefire agreement that freed the hostages and stopped the war. Netanyahu's far-right government chose, however, to break the ceasefire just to hold on to power.

In its background there is another actor who has given the green light to the new bombings of Gaza: USA's president Donald Trump. He has decided to in all cases be Netanyahu's best friend.

Both previous and current American administrations have supported the occupation and genocide in various ways through arms sales to Israel and military cooperation. The Trump administration has taken imperialism one step further and proposes that Gaza should be converted into a tourist destination for the wealthy. This would mean that Palestinians would be forced away from their already destroyed homes to make room for luxury resorts, in accordance with imperialist policies from the USA and Israel. Instead of discussing serious peace plans from the Arab League, Trump AI makes unserious videos of himself in Gaza. This clearly lacks any connection to reality but is part of the American far-right's tactics to make us upset and prevent us from discussing the right way forward.

In this situation, Sweden should stand behind South Africa's application of Israel to the International Court of Justice, ICJ, for violations of the genocide convention. It is indeed in the courts of the ICJ and ICC that justice is dispensed, not through extrajudicial executions.

The saga surrounding the EU's association agreement with Israel has been a tragedy in several acts. Israel today has a favorable trade relationship with the EU despite the agreement containing chapters on human rights. Sweden, together with a couple of other member states, has effectively blocked the suspension of the agreement by referring to the need for dialogue with Israel. First, Israel succeeded in delaying a first meeting in the association council month after month, in practice for an entire year. When the meeting finally took place, Sweden expressed obligatory criticism without any active measures being taken against Israel.

The EU should immediately suspend the current association agreement with Israel. Israel violates human rights, and therefore one cannot have favorable trade agreements. Instead of favorable trade, a weapons embargo should be introduced against Israel together with a comprehensive boycott of Israeli goods and services. We must use all conceivable economic pressures to get Israel to change its policy.

Sweden should, just like Norway, receive patients from Gaza. Just as we support Ukraine, we must save Palestinian children and cancer patients from being mutilated and dying.

The Swedish government's silence regarding Israel's crimes against humanity will be a shame in Swedish history. The government's cuts to UNRWA are political. They do not want UN Resolution 302 regarding the Palestinian refugees' right to education, healthcare, and return to be followed. Instead, they focus on the World Food Programme so that Palestinians will have food in their bellies. That is obviously important for Palestinians to survive. But it is also a way for the government to move from seeing Palestinians as active, independent actors with agency to seeing them as passive actors to be helped and saved – instead of addressing what is the fundamental problem: the occupation.

Vänsterpartiet stands firm that a just and sustainable peace between Israel and Palestine must be built on a two-state solution, with an independent and viable Palestinian state side by side with a secure and recognized Israeli state, within the borders that applied before the 1967 war. Jerusalem could be the capital for both countries.

For Vänsterpartiet, it is clear that Palestinian children's lives are worth just as much as our own children's lives. The children in Gaza have the right to a life free from bombs and devastation. This means that we demand an immediate end to Israel's occupation of Palestine, including the Palestinian refugees' right to return, and a removal of the illegal settlements. The peace process must be restarted with the goal of reaching a just peace so that the foundation can be laid for peace, freedom, and future coexistence. No one is free until all are free. This applies to both Palestinians who have been imprisoned and the Israeli hostage. We believe it is high time for Sweden and the rest of the world to act more forcefully to break the destructive spiral of violence and oppression and create a future where both Israelis and Palestinians can live in peace and security.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move for the approval of the Left Party's reservation number 2.

(Applause)

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! This is a report that the committee has labored over. It is based on motions from the general motion period until October 4th in the autumn, and since then, quite a lot has happened. It concerns a region in development, where things that apply today may not apply tomorrow.

Instability, conflict and war have affected the population in the Middle East for a very long time. We naturally see the developments in Gaza, which are devastating. But we also see the developments in Lebanon and Syria. We have seen what has happened in Iran as a consequence of the developments in Lebanon and Syria. We have seen Hezbollah, the Houthis in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf, Egypt and Turkey – there are many who are involved in the conflicts that are ongoing.

Here, our principles of international law, of the laws of war, of humanitarian law, of territorial integrity and of not changing borders with military means are being tested – something that we generally assert from the Swedish side.

I was in Southeast Asia a few weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, and there I could hear how our way of meeting the developments in the Middle East is being highlighted and compared with other conflicts and wars. If we stand up for our values and want to try to convince as many as possible out there that it is values that should be universal and that are part of creating freedom, development, and democracy for people, we must show that these principles also apply in the Middle East.

Let me be clear: the Centre Party stands fully behind Israel's, as well as all other states', self-evident right to defend itself against terrorism or attacks. If this leaves no room for doubt. We unequivocally condemn Hamas with multiple terror attacks and the brutal attack against civilians at a music festival on October 7, 2023 – undoubtedly so.

The future will show the history behind what happened. But undoubtedly it was a catastrophe, and it has created entirely new conditions regarding the possibilities for a peaceful solution. It will take longer. The wounds are deep and have become deeper, both among Israelis and among Palestinians, as a result of the development we have now seen.

I hear statements in the debate that Hamas must be exterminated. The military activity, the terror attacks, and the terror structure must come to an end. Then we must all work on trying to influence and change people's ideas and thoughts. They are rarely easy to exterminate, unless one has the ambition – which one or another may possibly experience lies behind the words – to in some way make the Palestinians disappear. But that is a model that is a direct violation of international law and the conventions that we have agreed upon – again based on our experiences of World War II and what happened when 6 million Jews were exterminated. We carry that experience with us, and it is clear that we must remember this when we discuss the events and the developments in the Middle East.

The committee welcomed the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas and also the ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah, for Lebanon's part. It was a ceasefire that contained several phases. In this debate, it sounds as if there is one phase that is to apply and that it was the one that was agreed upon, but that was not the case. There was a phase one that was to be followed by a phase two, where the rest of the hostages would be released but where Israel would also leave Gaza militarily. The question that many, including myself, ask is whether Israel has at all been able to imagine leaving Gaza militarily.

We watched with pleasure the negotiations that led to the ceasefire on January 19, but after that, we have seen the new president speak about the Mediterranean Riviera and that Palestinians should be expelled. It is clear that this type of message – even if it was later withdrawn, or however one views it – sends the signal that there is a possibility to do something other than follow the ceasefire.

I have also listened to the demand that everyone in the hostage situation must be released now, that is, before phase two begins, and that the gates of hell will open if that does not happen. It is clear that those types of signals are not optimal if one wants phase two to be realized.

Now we stand where we stand. The ceasefire has ceased, and we see brutal attacks once again. Tanks are rolling into Gaza again. Today, Hamas responds with rockets against Tel Aviv. We are well acquainted with the history that is unfolding.

I have previously touched upon that Israel during this month has blocked humanitarian access, cut off the electricity supply, and spoken about moving Palestinians from northern Gaza again. It is clear that those types of signals are a sign of what is to come.

When it comes to Lebanon, which is also part of the equation, it must be stated that Israel has not withdrawn from the blue line. UNIFIL warns that there could also be an escalation in Lebanon. There were demands that they should leave the country, but thank goodness they remain.

Lebanon, which has finally established a political leadership capable of moving the country and its hard-hit population forward, must not face a new destabilizing development with new attacks in southern Lebanon. They need to be able to create the conditions for the Lebanese military to fulfill the mission in the area south of the blue line. If one wants to secure this, one must hold back and be cautious – otherwise, the ceasefire will probably also be broken.

From the Center Party's side, it is undoubtedly the case that we want to see two states on the basis of international law, with secure and recognized borders, with self-determination, freedom, security and opportunities for the own population and with a Jerusalem with special status as the capital for two states.

It is clear here: Netanyahu has said that he does not want to see two states during his time, and we know that Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, who represent other parties in the government, do not either want to see it. They want to see something completely different: a Greater Israel. This has no support, neither internationally nor from us.

The Palestinian side also needs to be bolstered. A new technical government has been formed. The conditions for the Palestinian Authority to be responsible for reconstruction or a structure in Gaza are not there. More is required. One must therefore bolster the Palestinian Authority, and there we need to help.

We must also ensure that there will be a solution that regionally can compensate for a Palestinian state and an Israeli state in peace with one another. This is clear. Many have said that one should step in when that opportunity exists. Then one is prepared to pay. But the Gulf states and the Arab side are not prepared to step in and pay if they are to see the same thing happen once again and that everything is destroyed anew.

What is needed from our side is a strategy where one sees the whole of the area. The Middle East strategy that has been talked about is, to put it mildly, Mr. Speaker, no strategy for resolving the conflicts and creating peace in the Middle East. It would possibly work if peace had been established, if we had received two states, and if the structure in the area had been resolved in a democratic way.

Given the speaking time, I will not go into the amusing discussions in the committee, where we talked about whether it was a catastrophic humanitarian situation or not and whether one wanted to mention the persons who are wanted by the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court or not. The caution was overwhelming in the committee's handling of this matter, I can say, but I will not go into it any further.

We would like, from our side, to demand approval of reservations 5 and 12 in the report. It concerns the West Bank and the settlers there, and it concerns UNRWA.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I will begin by moving for the approval of reservations 4 and 9 so that I do not forget it.

When I listen to my committee colleagues from the Tidö group, Mr. Speaker, I often get the impression that the problems in Israel and Palestine began with Hamas's horrific terror attacks on October 7, 2023. That is quite ahistorical, so I would like to rewind the tape a bit. Now it will be a short – I hope – history lesson. It is primarily about seeing the patterns that exist regarding how the Palestinians have been treated over the last 100-plus years.

At the turn of the last century, there was a great antisemitism in Europe. Many Jews chose to either assimilate into societies or live their own lives, but all of a sudden, a new response came to the antisemitism that had previously emerged: the idea of a country of their own. This idea was marked by the culture and view of the world that existed at that time in Europe, that is, colonialism – that one can colonize other areas for their natural resources without having to take the local population into account.

This characterized the Zionism that emerged during this period. They looked for a new area to settle in and eventually settled on the area called Palestine, which at that time was ruled by the Ottoman Empire.

In Palestine, at this time, approximately 85 percent were Muslims, 9 percent were Christians, and around 5 percent were Jews.

It should be noted that it was not all Jews who thought that this was a very good idea. The more religious Jews thought that it went directly against the scriptures to establish a new Jewish state in Palestine.

In Basel 1897, the Zionist world organization was established. A Jewish authority was also established, which was tasked with attracting Jews to move to Palestine.

Eventually, the Jewish National Fund was also established, which had the task of acquiring land areas in Palestine that could be built upon and inhabited exclusively by Jews. It is a rule that remains in force even today.

After 1948, the Fund tried to change its image somewhat and focused more on planting trees, parks, and forests where Palestinian villages had previously stood.

Here in Sweden, the Jewish National Fund is also known as KKL Sverige. Some members of our committee have even been on trips to Israel under its sponsorship.

After the first world war, the British took over the Mandate of Palestine from the Ottomans. The Jews who lived there were strengthened by a promise from the anti-Semitic British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour that they would be given their own homeland in the Mandate of Palestine.

The British also supported the Jewish migration to Palestine. They trained and educated Jewish police forces and taught how to punish villages, demolish houses, and gather crowds. This, therefore, takes place in the Palestine Mandate during the 1920s and 1930s.

Then came Nazism and the Holocaust here in Europe. Even more Jews tried to flee from Europe, but among others, USA, Great Britain, Canada and Australia closed their borders.

Where did then all these Jews who tried to flee go? Well, many of them made their way to Palestine even if they were not Zionists and were attracted by the idea of a Jewish homeland.

The desire for a Jewish state required a territory with a majority of Jews, so during the 1920s and especially the 1930s and 1940s, strategies were developed to achieve exactly a territory with a majority of Jews. In the 1930s, efforts were initiated to try to expel and displace Palestinians from various villages.

Mr. Speaker! The breakthrough came after the Second World War, when the United Kingdom handed over India and the Palestine Mandate to the UN in an attempt to resolve these conflicts. When it came to the Palestine Mandate, this eventually led to the UN partition plan, also known as resolution 181.

At this time, the Mandate of Palestine consisted of approximately two-thirds Muslims, barely one-third Jews, and around 8 percent Christians.

The Jewish National Fund had until then succeeded in scraping together approximately 6.7 percent of the country and making it exclusively Jewish land.

But the partition plan, then? What did it say? Well, it said that the Jews, who made up barely a third of the mandate, would receive 56 percent of the land area while the Palestinians were allocated 43 percent. Jerusalem and Bethlehem would become a corpus separatum under international administration.

The resolution clearly stated that Palestinians and Jews themselves would be allowed to decide where they wanted to live and have full rights to citizenship where they chose to settle. It therefore did not proceed from any form of population exchange, but the Palestinians – or the Muslims – and the Jews would themselves have the right to choose which of the two states they would live in.

The resolution also stated that if one moved and gave up land or properties, one had the right to full compensation.

The partition plan was adopted by the UN on November 29, 1947 and gave the Zionist movement legitimacy to create its own state despite the fact that the Palestinians and many Arab countries said no to the plan.

The work of binding together the Jewish areas in the Mandate of Palestine gained momentum primarily by displacing Palestinians. It accelerated particularly in the beginning of 1948 – between March and May 1948, that is, already before the war broke out. At that time, around 300,000 Palestinians were displaced in what would gradually come to be called nakba, the catastrophe. Even before the war broke out on May 14, around 300,000 Palestinians had thus been displaced. On May 14, the State of Israel was declared independent, which led to war with the neighboring countries. The second half of the approximately 750,000 Palestinians who were displaced during nakba were displaced during this war.

Mr. Speaker! This happened in different ways. Above all, villages were attacked from three sides and a flank was left open so that people could flee from there. Men, women, and children were separated. Collaboration was sought with collaborators who had been in contact with during the 1920s and 1930s to find out who were opponents of Israel so that they could be captured and killed in the population's view. Fear was sown by parading prisoners and displaying the killed, including on the streets of Jerusalem.

The rumors about what happened spread quickly from village to village, which caused many to pack their belongings and try to flee from there.

Villages were looted so that there was nothing to come back to, and houses began to be demolished. Over 750,000 Palestinians were displaced from their homes during the Nakba. More than 530 villages were destroyed, and a systematic oppression began – an oppression that continues to this day.

Even today, there are around 300,000 Palestinians in Israel who are internal refugees. That means that they have still not been able to move back to the villages they came from within the borders of Israel.

Mr. Speaker! From 1948 to 1966, military laws applied to Palestinians within Israel. This meant that they had to have permission to leave and return to the territories they lived in. It also meant that Israel could declare that an area was a military area, which meant that Palestinians were not allowed to stay there.

Another law that was introduced stated that if land has been uncultivated for three years, it belongs to the state. It is a cynical way to seize land – one simply declares an area to be a military area so that Palestinians are forced to leave it. After three years, they receive a notice from the court: Since you have not cultivated your land for three years, it belongs to the state of Israel. When they then tell the court that it was the military who said they were not allowed to be there, the court responds: You have to take that problem up with the military. We only follow the law here. Thousands of hectares of land were simply confiscated by the state.

In 1950, the Law of Return was introduced. It is actually the only law in the Israeli law book that is discriminatory. The law says that all Jews, regardless of where in the world they are born, have the right to "return" to Israel.

The cynical thing about this law is that it is used in combination with other laws to discriminate – if you are covered by the law on the right of return, these laws apply to you and so on. Despite the fact that there is only one discriminatory law, we see that Israel has become a country that is full of discrimination against Palestinians.

In 1965, something called the planning law was adopted, which lists all cities and villages in Israel. But many Palestinian villages are missing, including 46 villages in the Negev Desert. They are not included on lists or on maps. This means that they do not receive any electricity. They also receive no water, no roads, no sewage, no waste collection, and so on.

Madam Speaker! In 1967, the Six-Day War led to Israel occupying the West Bank, the Golan Heights, Gaza, and the Sinai Peninsula.

This caused some problems for Israel, which, under a motto of maximum space under Israeli control and minimal Palestinians, found itself in a situation where it had control over significantly more Palestinians. During the war and the subsequent period, an additional 450,000 Palestinians were displaced, half of whom were refugees from 1948. They were thus displaced for a second time within the span of two decades.

A solution was presented to deal with this problem. It came from the military officer and minister Yigal Allon and was also called the Allon Plan. The first thing that was done was to annex the area between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, called Latrun, where three Palestinian villages were located. This meant that 10,000 Palestinians were displaced from the area. KKL – also called the Jewish National Fund – established a park called Canada Park where the three villages had been, because it was the Canadian KKL that supported this. Today, not a trace remains of these Palestinian villages; instead, there is only a park and a forest there.

The plan also aimed at dividing the West Bank into a northern and a southern part. They also tried to eliminate all Palestinian presence in the Jordan Valley, on the border with Jordan. The Jordan Valley is one of the most fertile areas in all of Palestine. Only about 10,000 Palestinians remain in the area. Many of them live in the world's oldest city, Jericho.

At the end of the 1970s, Ariel Sharon gave clear signals for religiously and ideologically motivated Zionists to move out into several parts of the occupied West Bank. This was done by taking a caravan or a tent and settling on a hill. The military was then forced to follow to try to protect the settlers against Palestinians, and it did not take long before these outposts became legitimate settlements.

The plan was to continue in the same way as in Israel during the 1940s to 1960s by forcing Palestinians into certain concentrated areas and surrounding them with settlements and the military. This also became the blueprint when the Oslo Accords were drafted.

Palestinians naturally tried to resist, and especially in Gaza, quite a lot of resistance occurred. This caused Israel to try to establish village councils where Palestinians acted as Israel's proxy to manage security in the Palestinian villages and cities. We have seen that the same method has been used, for example, to govern the indigenous peoples in the USA and Canada. The councils were, however, not seen as legitimate by the Palestinians because only the PLO was seen as the rightful representative for the Palestinians.

Throughout the entire 1980s, discussions took place between the PLO and Israel for the PLO to take on this role. The combination of Palestinian villages and cities surrounded by militaries and settlements and a PLO that finally accepted to establish a Palestinian authority constituted what eventually landed in the Oslo Accords. It was very similar to the bantustan system that existed in South Africa during the apartheid era.

Madam Speaker! The Oslo Accords stipulated that more areas would be transferred to Palestinian administration if the Palestinian Authority behaved. This led to the Palestinian Authority quickly beginning to crack down on all types of activities carried out in the struggle for Palestinian freedom, whether it was armed or unarmed struggle. Still, the Palestinians were constantly told that they were not doing enough to crack down on terrorism and other revolts.

The Oslo Accords also stipulated that the expansion of settlements would cease. However, the number of settlers doubled during the 90s after the Oslo Accords were signed. The agreement also gives Israel the right to establish roadblocks, checkpoints, and separate settlement roads that Palestinians are not allowed to travel on. This has led to the Swiss cheese of Palestinian areas we see on maps today, where Palestinians do not even have the right to travel from one village to another if they are forced to pass a settlement road or a military area.

On the West Bank, the same military laws apply today for Palestinians as in Israel during the 1940s to the 1960s: If Israel declares that an area is military, Palestinians may not stay there at all. Today, people also live under different types of legislation in the occupied territories. Palestinian children who throw stones are sentenced in a military court, while Israeli settler children who throw stones are probably acquitted. If they were to be sentenced, it is in a civil court.

Madam Speaker! Today we are talking about the Palestinians negotiating for an area corresponding to 20 percent of historical Palestine. The Palestinians do not have control over their own borders, their airspace, or their coast. Palestinians do not have control over their own imports and exports. Everything is controlled by Israel. Palestinians do not have control over their own tax revenues, as they are channeled through Israeli banks. The Palestinians are not allowed to move freely even on Palestinian territory.

Palestinians have throughout history been met with bullets if they have peacefully protested against the occupation. They are met with bullets if they demonstrate with violence, and they are met with bullets even when they do nothing at all.

Madam Speaker! The terror attack on October 7, 2023, was a horrific event. But the events that Palestinians were subjected to from the beginning of the 1900s until October 7, and especially after October 7, have also been horrific – downright hellish.

What is now happening in Gaza is a humanitarian catastrophe of unimaginable proportions. On March 18, Israel unilaterally broke the ceasefire and initiated massive airstrikes across all of Gaza without warning. Israel's defense minister has declared that the gates of hell are open. Since the attacks resumed, at least 1,000 people have been killed, including newborns, women, and the elderly. The number of dead and injured rises every hour.

It is not only the bombings that are claiming lives. Israel has carried out extensive forced displacements of civilians. Evacuation orders have been issued, and those who cannot or do not want to flee risk being subjected to attacks. At the same time, the bombings of schools, homes, and refugee camps continue. This is also happening in areas that were previously designated as humanitarian zones. There is no longer any safe place in Gaza.

The children are hit hardest. Gaza now has the highest levels of malnutrition among children in the world. Israel has completely blocked the supply of food, water, medicine, and fuel. The hospitals are on the verge of collapse, and there is an acute shortage of pain relief and life-saving medicines. The water crisis worsens every day, as the fuel shortage forces desalination plants to close.

We also see systematic attacks against life-saving resources. We know that thousands of people lie buried under the rubble, and the aid is not reaching them. At least 18,000 children have died in this war. For many of the survivors, the future is destroyed. As if this were not enough, Israel has ordered that the border at Rafah must remain closed. This makes medical evacuations impossible. Now, warnings are issued that many children urgently need care outside Gaza.

What is happening is a crime against international law and humanity. Attacks against civilians, hospitals, and vital resources are unjustifiable and must be condemned in the strongest possible terms. Sweden and the international community can no longer stand by passively. We must demand an immediate and unconditional ceasefire. We must lift the blockade of Gaza, and we must ensure that humanitarian aid reaches through again.

Madam Speaker! It is our duty to act. To remain silent is to betray. The occupation must come to an immediate end.

(Applause)

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

Jamal El-Haj (-)

Madam Speaker! I move for the approval of motion 2024/25:831 Israel's responsibility for the murder of Bernadotte.

On Friday, September 17, 1948, three diplomatic cars drove without an escort into the Jewish part of Jerusalem. Suddenly, the street was blocked by a jeep. Four uniformed and armed men jumped out of the jeep and ran towards the third car in the convoy. They raised their automatic weapons and emptied the magazines into the car's back seat. There sat Folke Bernadotte, UN mediator and Swedish count, with two associates. Bernadotte was hit by 6 shots, his French assistant by 17. Both men died immediately.

Already the day after the attack, it was clear that it was the underground Jewish terrorist organization Lehi, or the Liberation Fighters of Israel, often called the Stern Group, that was behind the attack. No one was ever convicted for the murders; instead, it was regarded as a heroic deed in Israel. The attackers were decorated with a special medal of bravery created for those who contributed to the founding of the State of Israel.

The four murderers were identified, and three of them confessed to the acts over the years in several interviews in, among others, Swedish media. The primary person responsible was appointed as the head of the bodyguard for the first Israeli prime minister, David Ben-Gurion. The one who was operationally responsible for the attack, Yitzhak Shamir, later became Israel's prime minister for the right-wing party Likud – the same party that is led today by Benjamin Netanyahu.

Bernadotte's most dramatic rescue operation was when, in the final stages of World War II, he obtained permission to drive 80 buses and trucks into war-torn Germany. The Swedish Red Cross and Bernadotte saved a total of 21,700 people through the white buses. Of these, 8,000 were Scandinavians. Those who were saved were accommodated in Malmö and the then Malmöhus county. Of those who survived, approximately 500 stayed in Sweden; the rest returned to their home countries. Many emigrated to the newly founded state of Israel in 1948.

Folke Bernadotte was tasked by the UN General Assembly on May 21, 1948, to mediate in the British Palestine Mandate. When Bernadotte's first union proposal fell, he came forward with a proposal for two independent states. This later proposal had seven basic principles, which are mentioned in the motion. Many Israelis considered that Folke Bernadotte's mediation attempt was to the detriment of Israel. They argued that Bernadotte stood in the way of a Greater Israel, because he intended that, alongside the Jewish state, there would also be a Palestinian state and that the Palestinian refugees would be allowed to return. It was therefore that he was murdered by the Stern Group.

In September 2024, it would have been 76 years since the murder. It is normal for states or nations to apologize when they have committed murder or genocide against other states or nations. In this case, Folke Bernadotte was the UN's mediator and had an international role, so the murder was not only directed against the Swedish people but against all the world's nations. The Riksdag must give Count Bernadotte redress by demanding a public apology from the state of Israel and providing the count's family with financial compensation. It is not harder than that.

Madam Speaker! Since then, Israel has cold-bloodedly murdered everyone who opposed its occupation. We are talking about thousands of Palestinians. We are talking about poets, authors, doctors, and thinkers. Those who fought with the power of the word were murdered.

Israel's killings continue. During the night of March 18, 2025, that is, a few days ago, Israel carried out an unprovoked terrorist attack against the civilian population in Gaza during ongoing negotiations on a potential permanent ceasefire. During this bloody night, over 400 people were murdered. Over 500 were injured, many of them seriously. Among the dead were at least 130 children. These deaths are not only tragic. This attack is also a clear violation of international humanitarian law and the human rights that we are all obligated to protect and defend.

Israel – a state that claims to be a democratic state governed by the rule of law – has repeatedly acted without regard for the fundamental duties and moral frameworks that should guide all states, whether it concerns war or peace processes.

The attacks were also carried out during the holy month of Ramadan, which is a time for reflection, devotion, and fasting for millions of Muslims, Christians, and Jews worldwide. Just as fasting people in Gaza were eating their night meal before the next day's fast, their homes and lives were attacked in a brutal and ruthless act.

This incomprehensible act is not only an attack on innocent people but also a direct affront to the most fundamental human values of respect for life, dignity, and justice. It demonstrates a complete lack of empathy and morality in a time when we, as human beings, should strive for peace and understanding, even in difficult moments.

As a nation that has always stood for human rights, democracy and international solidarity, Sweden can and must not turn a blind eye to these horrific acts of terror. We have a moral responsibility to take a clear and powerful stand against such abuses and to stand up for the lives, safety and justice of innocent people. It is time to act to restore the human rights that form the basis of our common humanity.

Sweden must also play a leading role in advancing a united and clear international front that demands accountability from those who commit such atrocities. Therefore, the Minister for Foreign Affairs should immediately summon the Israeli ambassador to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs to inform him of Sweden's firm view on Israel's actions. Sweden should call for immediate measures to ensure that those responsible for these deadly attacks are brought to justice. The Swedish government should also work to increase the international pressure on Israel to follow international humanitarian law and stop these inhumane acts.

Madam Speaker! The world must realize that no state or government can act in violation of human rights without being held accountable for its actions. Peace and justice are not just a goal but a necessary prerequisite for a sustainable and secure future for all of us.

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! The fragile ceasefire in Gaza is broken. The Israeli bombs are falling again over Gaza, and the tanks are rolling in where hospitals, schools, and homes already lie in ruins. Children who are already severely traumatized can no longer sleep peacefully at night due to worry for their own and their family's safety. At least another 1,000 dead can be added to the 50,000 who have already lost their lives in this brutal genocide.

This must come to an end. There lies a heavy responsibility on the rest of the world to pressure Israel into a permanent ceasefire, and if Israel does not listen, the rest of the world must force Israel to listen through pressure and sanctions.

Madam Speaker! I will focus my speech on the aid. In a situation where support for Palestinians is more important than ever, Sweden chooses to stop the support to the UN agency UNRWA. It is a death blow to millions of Palestinians in Gaza and in refugee camps all around the region. UNRWA received its mandate from the UN in 1949 to assist Palestinian refugees until a just and lasting solution was reached. Since then, UNRWA has been a lifeline for Palestinian refugees.

Israel's governments have long worked to undermine UNRWA to escape the international responsibility of caring for Palestinian refugees who have been displaced from their homes for decades. On October 28, 2024, the Israeli parliament decided to ban UNRWA, a decision that clearly violates the UN Charter.

Instead of condemning Israel's law against UNRWA, Sweden has chosen to withdraw its support. It is a decision that risks undermining the UN's work and the international legal system. Independent investigations and serious researchers from among others the Raoul Wallenberg Institute have shown that there is no basis for Israel's allegations against UNRWA.

Sweden's government's claim that humanitarian aid should be redistributed to other organizations shows that the government has not understood UNRWA's unique role. No other organizations have the mandate or capacity to replace UNRWA, which has an infrastructure for education, healthcare, and humanitarian assistance tailored to the needs of Palestinian refugees. We know that UNRWA reaches out on the ground. Immediately after the ceasefire, the organization reached out with food parcels to 2 million Palestinians and clean water to half a million. Additionally, 213,000 children were vaccinated, and 35,000 pregnant women in the risk zone received help. UNRWA also established temporary school places for 50,000 children. These are just a few examples of what the UN agency carried out in a short period. Sweden should therefore immediately resume the support to UNRWA.

In recent years, not least since October 7, 2023, violence, harassment, and general lawlessness have increased in the West Bank. Illegal aggressive settlers and soldiers have attacked Palestinians. Their houses have been destroyed, and Palestinians have been displaced and harassed. Between October 7, 2023, and September 16, 2024, nearly 1,400 attacks took place, and 700 Palestinians were killed.

The situation in the West Bank has worsened further during the recent period and is becoming increasingly acute. Settlers and the Israeli military threaten, kill, and drive Palestinians into flight. Diakonia's partner Doctors for Human Rights testifies that certain areas in the West Bank are beginning to resemble Gaza. Poverty has worsened, unemployment is widespread, and people cannot move and cannot get to doctors. The medical needs are crying out. It happens that people die at roadblocks because they cannot reach hospitals in time. Roads are destroyed and blocked, and ambulances cannot make it to the hospitals.

On January 21, two days after the ceasefire in Gaza took effect, Israel's military operation Iron Wall began against refugee camps in the northern West Bank. Hundreds of soldiers, armored vehicles, and high-tech weapons have been used. As a result, 30,000–40,000 people have been displaced. Many of them are now homeless and have nowhere to go.

In addition to the support for UNRWA, the support for organizations working to promote human rights, democracy, and peaceful development needs to be strengthened. Instead, we see how the Swedish government is cutting the total aid to Palestine and stopping the support to a number of rights organizations. It is, to say the least, counterproductive.

An organization that has lost its support after having been on the ground for over 20 years is the Ecumenical Companion Programme. Through this program, international observers 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. Companions have, among other things, walked with Palestinian schoolchildren past military checkpoints on their way to school. Why stop this peacekeeping project that has so successfully contributed to protecting the civilian population and documenting abuses?

Sida is not only withdrawing support for the companion program but also for eight Palestinian and Israeli rights organizations. This includes, among others, the organizations B’Tselem, Al-Haq, Al Mezan Center for Human Rights and Palestinian Centre for Human Rights. Defence of Children, which is a sister organization to Rädda Barnen, will not be able to provide the same support to children who have been imprisoned in the West Bank and who, according to investigations, are subjected to torture. The Israeli organization B’Tselem, which recently published an internationally noticed report on violence and abuse in Israeli prisons, will also find it more difficult to operate.

The Swedish government's decision to deprioritize aid to Palestine has been criticized by a long line of Palestinian and Israeli organizations who argue that it undermines the work for human rights and international law. Withdrawing aid to rights organizations as is now happening is counterproductive and runs counter to the ambitions in both the government's reform agenda and the current aid strategy.

In the development cooperation strategy for the Middle East and North Africa, it can be read, for example, that Sida's activities shall contribute to strengthened capacity of human rights defenders, civil society and media in order to promote democratic development and increased respect for human rights and the principles of the rule of law. In the development cooperation strategy, it is emphasized that the bilateral activities in Palestine shall aim for a democratic development and a negotiated two-state solution in accordance with international law.

If the government is serious about standing up for a two-state solution and is critical of the illegal settlements, the support for the organizations that promote such a development should increase and not decrease.

Sweden's government is reducing both focus on and aid to Palestine at a time when the world's engagement is more important than ever. It is a betrayal of both Palestinians and Israelis, but also of all of us who believe in a solidary world.

But to achieve a solution to the long-standing conflict, first and foremost a permanent ceasefire must be established, the occupation of Palestine must end, the illegal settlements must be withdrawn, and Israel's aggression must cease. It is obvious that words are not enough to get Israel's government to listen. The rest of the world must put pressure on Israel through sanctions, and here Sweden could play an important role if the political will exists. Obviously, the aid to UNRWA and the aforementioned human rights organizations must also be reinstated.

I vote in favor of reservation 11.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 26 March.)

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