Response to interpellation 2024/25:299 on the ban of UNRWA

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Madam Speaker! Jacob Risberg has asked me how I work to stop the ban of UNRWA before it is too late, how I work to achieve a just and sustainable two-state solution and if I see an end to the occupation as necessary for this to become a reality, as well as how I view the role of Israeli and Palestinian civil society on the way towards a just and sustainable peace.

The government has on several occasions criticized the Israeli legislative proposals regarding UNRWA, which among other things risk making it almost impossible for the organization to operate in Gaza. The government has pointed out that the laws could come into conflict with Israel's obligations under international law. Israel has a special responsibility under international humanitarian law to ensure that the needs of the civilian population are met in Gaza. The government expects that UNRWA, like other UN organizations, be protected and respected in line with international obligations. We have, in our own contacts and together with other Nordic countries and with the EU, urged Israel to ensure continued humanitarian access for humanitarian actors such as UNRWA.

The Government stands fully and completely behind the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion of 19 July 2024. A sustainable peace between Israel and Palestine must be based on a negotiated two-state solution in accordance with international law, and thus also an end to the occupation. The Government supports the EU's and the UN's work to achieve a credible process for a two-state solution and is in close contact with like-minded individuals and representatives from the region. Furthermore, the Government has been a driving force for the introduction of sanctions against extremist settlers and supports the work to reform and strengthen the Palestinian Authority.

The overall orientation for Sweden's aid to Palestine is to contribute to a peaceful development by promoting the long-term conditions for a negotiated two-state solution in accordance with international law. In this, the Palestinian and Israeli civil society, among others, have an important role to play.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Foreign Affairs, for coming and taking this interpellation debate with us! It will be very interesting to hear what you have to say on these issues. It is, of course, a very broad range of questions. We could debate this for an entire afternoon, it feels like.

In October 2024, Israel passed two legislative amendments that will prevent UNRWA from operating in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem starting next Thursday. It is a decision that will have devastating consequences if implemented, and the clock is truly ticking.

UNRWA accounts for 80 percent of all emergency aid that reaches the civilian population in Gaza. At the current moment, there are no other alternatives that can replace the UN agency's infrastructure and capacity. We have also seen this following the ceasefire that was introduced on Sunday.

The silence from the rest of the world regarding the decision also creates a dangerous precedent for other conflicts. It signals that governments can remove an inconvenient UN presence without consequences. Furthermore, the decision is based on physical and bureaucratic obstacles that Israel has introduced to limit the amount of aid reaching Gaza and openly contradicts Israel's claim that it is facilitating humanitarian aid to the area.

The government has expressed concern over the ban and in December voted for a UN resolution where it was required that the law be repealed, but they have not followed up this resolution with any other measures against Israel. They have neither condemned the ban nor summoned Israel's ambassador, which I find strange. It is an all too weak action.

We see it as necessary to take even sharper measures to achieve a permanent ceasefire, not just a temporary one, and for the support to come through. It is high time to pause the association agreement with Israel. The EU should also introduce trade sanctions and an arms embargo. This is, however, nothing that our government stands behind at this date, despite the fact that the situation continues to worsen.

The government has also, in its new strategy for the Middle East from the turn of the year, stopped all support to a number of MR organizations, both Israeli and Palestinian, as well as the Ecumenical companion program.

In the shadow of the war in Gaza, the violence in the West Bank has increased significantly, and we have seen an even greater increase after the ceasefire on Sunday. Over 50 Palestinian communities have been evacuated due to settler violence, and at least 41 new Israeli settler outposts have been added.

The government's political support for Israel's government clearly shapes both foreign and aid policy, which not only exacerbates the acute suffering in Gaza but also directly opposes the possibility of the two-state solution that they say they support. In the government's strategy for the Middle East, the two-state solution is mentioned repeatedly, but the occupation is not mentioned a single time.

Miljöpartiet considers it of the utmost importance to provide support to both Palestinian and Israeli peace and human rights organizations, as well as naturally to UNRWA. They are the only ones who can counteract the enormous division that the war creates between Israelis and Palestinians. They are completely central for us to be able to achieve a just and sustainable two-state solution.

In light of this, I still wonder, as it does not feel like we have received an answer: How is the government working to stop the ban on UNRWA? Have the alternatives even been discussed with the Israeli ambassador and how Israel intends to fill this vacuum? The Foreign Minister nevertheless says in his answer that Israel has a responsibility for the civilian population, but how does that manifest? How is the government working to achieve a just and sustainable two-state solution? Does the government see an end to the occupation as necessary for such to become a reality? And how does the government view the role of Israeli and Palestinian civil society on the path toward a just and sustainable peace?

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker - and welcome into the debate, Mr. Speaker! The agency for supporting Palestinian refugees, UNRWA, was established by the UN Security Council through resolution 302 a very long time ago. It was after what is called al-nakba occurred, where Palestinians were displaced from their homes in what is today Israel to the West Bank, Gaza, and other states around.

Resolution 302 points out that UNRWA shall provide education, healthcare and other support to the Palestinian refugees throughout the Middle East. It is one of the most important resolutions to contribute to faith and hope for the future for the Palestinian refugees. The resolution was so early that other UN bodies that we know today which help refugees did not even exist. That is why Palestine has this unique solution.

Since then, we have heard disinformation from Israel and from the Swedish right over the decades about UNRWA - that it would be a terrorist organization and all sorts of other things. Disinformation on top of disinformation has arrived, which has since turned out not to be true.

We have now lived through over 470 days of war and genocide in Gaza and, in addition, a blockade of Gaza. It is, as we have just discussed, this that is being investigated by the International Criminal Court as crimes against humanity and by the International Court of Justice as genocide.

The blockade meant that they stopped UNRWA's ability to operate in Gaza, stopped deliveries to and from Gaza, and deliberately created famine. Now we have received a law from the Israeli side that comes into force in just six days, where they stop UNRWA from operating on Israeli territory.

Yes, the government has been clear in its criticism of this law. It is something that I have welcomed and fundamentally think is good. What surprises me, however, is that the government decides to stop all support to UNRWA. One goes from Sweden having been one of the largest donors to UNRWA for a long time to now giving 0 kronor in support. This is done with the justification that the law will prevent UNRWA from operating. One decides, therefore, to already follow the law that one has nevertheless criticized.

The strange thing about this is that it is done even though UNRWA can operate in the neighboring countries where the Palestinian refugees are and receive education and healthcare without being met by Israel's bombs or starvation.

I believe that in this debate we will not hear the real reasons why the government is acting in this way. I believe we have to look at other Members of Parliament from the right who are not here in the Swedish Riksdag debating today and who do not want to say what the real reasons are. Those who have bought the Israeli disinformation, who for years have collaborated with organizations such as NGO Monitor to smear UNRWA and who year after year have demanded that Sweden should end the support to UNRWA, are sitting today and hiding behind Maria Malmer Stenergard and are satisfied with this decision. They think everything is great. But they are not taking the debate here in the chamber of the Riksdag, because it is not a debate they want.

It means that we stand here with a government that says it supports UNRWA and is happy to lead meetings in the UN about UNRWA but which ultimately, when it is time for payment to UNRWA's account, chooses not to send any money at all. It means that one crushes Palestinian healthcare and Palestinian dreams in a way whose like we have never seen.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to the interpellants for initiating this debate!

The decision to withdraw all core funding to UNRWA from the Swedish side is a catastrophic decision. It is sometimes claimed that other organizations can step in instead of UNRWA - World Food Programme, Unicef and other UN organizations. The truth, however, is that none of these UN organizations, or the Red Cross which is also sometimes referred to, say that they can manage this task without UNRWA's support at the bottom. The infrastructure that UNRWA has, with its 30,000 employees, is needed in order to be able to deliver humanitarian aid.

It is a catastrophic decision. It means that one weakens UNRWA when one should instead give all support to UNRWA. It also means that Sweden breaks with the UN line. For a country to say that it no longer intends to cooperate with a UN organization actually means that it breaks with the UN Charter. Here, Sweden suddenly falls into such a line and breaks with the UN line.

One also breaks the EU line. The EU has expressed strong support for UNRWA moving forward.

The truth is that one even violates one's own policy. Just a few weeks before the decision was made to withdraw the funds, one had voted for a UN resolution where it was just declared that UNRWA was indispensable to fulfill these tasks. It is an incomprehensible decision, and it is a catastrophic decision.

The government says that it will be a problem to get aid through UNRWA as a result of the new legislation. Yes, it will be. That is exactly why the government, together with other countries, must do everything possible to change the legislation. But then one also forgets that UNRWA operates not only in Palestine but also in Jordan, Lebanon, and many other areas. When core funding is withdrawn, one also weakens UNRWA's work in Jordan, Lebanon, and all other countries.

Before the decision to withdraw the core funding to UNRWA, did the government have any contact at all with the Jordanian government? I know that when the government last considered withdrawing the support, a year ago, there was a strong reaction, not least from Jordan, which has millions of Palestinian refugees in its territory and where UNRWA is absolutely crucial for the Palestinians to survive and for schools, healthcare, and other things that UNRWA operates. Did the government have any contact at all with the countries where UNRWA operates?

What actually happened from the moment Sweden voted for a UN resolution where one backs UNRWA and claims that UNRWA is crucial for getting humanitarian aid out, to the moment one came with the sudden and very surprising decision to withdraw all core support to UNRWA?

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer, and I thank Jacob Risberg for an important interpellation.

We all rejoice at the ceasefire that has finally been achieved in Gaza, but the outcome of the war is catastrophic and the needs for assistance are enormously difficult to oversee and comprehend. There are over 45,000 dead, of whom a majority are women and children. Thousands are injured, many for life. Thousands of children are traumatized. Houses, schools and hospitals lie in ruins. The needs for assistance are enormous and will be so for a long time.

UNRWA is the organization that has the UN's mandate to protect Palestinian refugees and which has the personnel, capacity, and ability to reach out on the ground. Other organizations on site are dependent on UNRWA to reach out.

The Minister answers that the government has on several occasions criticized the Israeli legislative proposals regarding UNRWA, which among other things risk making it almost impossible for the organization to operate in Gaza. The government expects that UNRWA, in line with other UN organizations, be protected and respected in accordance with international obligations.

This sounds very good, of course. Sweden was also involved in making the decision in the UN General Assembly on December 19 that UNRWA is irreplaceable, must have the support of the member states, and constitutes the backbone of all humanitarian efforts in Gaza. But a few weeks later, the government ends all support to UNRWA - to the organization that the government considered indispensable a few days earlier.

The government's actions are incomprehensible, inconsistent and catastrophic. To stop the support to UNRWA is to fall completely into the Israeli trap and contribute to Israel's attack on the UN and international law. It is obvious that Sweden's government would rather listen to Israel's smear campaign than to serious researchers and the UN.

UNRWA received its mandate from the UN member states in 1949, and today it operates schools, primary healthcare, and emergency relief for Palestinian refugees in Gaza, eastern Jerusalem, the West Bank, as well as in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. It is a well-functioning organization, and it has an important stabilizing effect, not least in Gaza.

The criticism against UNRWA started long before the war in Gaza and actually aims to get rid of the refugee issue, which is burdensome for Israel. If UNRWA disappears, Israel hopes to be able to make the refugee issue and the Palestinian refugees' right of return vanish, even though Israel is obligated under the UN Charter to protect UNRWA's personnel.

So, Sweden has now ended the support to UNRWA, and one contributes in that way to Israel's attacks on the UN, UNRWA, and international law. What sources has the government used when making the decision to withdraw support to UNRWA when it does not seem to trust established researchers such as those within International Crisis Group or the Raoul Wallenberg Institute or what independent evaluations say about UNRWA being important and indispensable?

The Minister also says that Sweden supports a two-state solution, and that is good. The government has, however, removed the strategy for Palestine and replaced it with a Middle East strategy. There, Israel's occupation is not mentioned at all.

If a two-state solution is to become possible, the occupation must cease. Why is Israel's occupation not mentioned in the strategy? Furthermore, the support is withdrawn for Palestinian and Israeli MR organizations, including the Swedish part of the Ecumenical Companion Program. These are organizations that, through their work, contribute to a two-state solution. It is also both incorrect and counterproductive if we mean seriously to stand up for a peaceful two-state solution.

I mean that the Swedish government must stick to its previous positions in the UN and resume support for UNRWA as well as for other organizations that work with issues regarding human rights in Palestine and Israel.

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

Peter Hultqvist (S)

Mr. Speaker! Even though one has verbally tried to give an impression of supporting UNRWA, in practice, one has acceded to Israel's wishes by removing the money. That is the only conclusion that can be drawn, that is to say, that one has given an impression outwardly and then comes with a completely different picture.

UNRWA is an organization that operates not only in Palestinian territories but also in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. Removing the money will hit the operations broadly. It is a way for Israel to undermine the operations, and in the way the government acts, one is playing along in that truly miserable play. Who is it that decides in UNRWA matters? Is it the Swedish government or someone else?

I have previously raised the two-state solution, and I have asked what the strategy actually looks like. I understand that this must take place in a broader context, but the Swedish government can be active. Once upon a time, Social Democratic governments were active in the issue. The Labour Party in Norway made major efforts. This led to the fact that, eventually, together with others, they paved the way for what later became an agreement, which in the long run could lead to a two-state solution where both Yassir Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin were involved.

What does the government's strategy look like on this point, rather than just mentioning it with a sentence in speeches in various contexts? On the question, it is said that one must be more frequent with a reference to the EU. What does that look like?

Are you prepared to, in some way, put pressure on Israel, which has said no to a two-state solution? What does that pressure look like? Are you prepared to, in some way, strengthen the Palestinian Authority, which is actually the authority on the Palestinian side that has the mandate to drive those types of processes? How should we view the situation where there is a ceasefire and then, immediately afterwards, an extensive military operation is carried out in Jenin which contributes to new refugees, destroys infrastructure and creates unrest and major problems? What is the continuation of this?

How does the government view the settlements? There are 750,000 settlers today, if one adds East Jerusalem and the West Bank together. If one is to go by international law in an agreement, Israel must leave all these settlements. Then the settlements shall be abolished because they from the beginning conflict with international law. You are not allowed to build such on occupied territory. It is clear. How does the government view that question?

The EU has discussed trade sanctions against Israel. How does the government view that? Somewhere the world must start putting pressure on Israel, also in a more concrete sense. There are limits for different types of actions and violations of international law and justice. These just continue and continue, and no one says anything.

When the catastrophe occurred in Gaza and with the Hamas attack against the kibbutzim, people began to speak somewhat cautiously about a two-state solution. But I see no strategy anywhere. I see no deliberate action.

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

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Government welcomes, as stated, the announcement of a ceasefire in Gaza. It implies, among other things, that parts of the hostages are released, and it paves the way toward a more lasting end to the hostilities. It is now crucial that the agreement is implemented and that it also contributes to alleviating the enormous suffering of the civilian population in Gaza and to significantly improved humanitarian access.

The increased humanitarian deliveries during the first days are a very welcome and much-needed step. A ceasefire is also a prerequisite for steps towards a negotiated two-state solution. Sweden stands ready to support the humanitarian efforts to significantly increase the import of life-saving supplies to the civilian population.

After the 15-month-long war, the humanitarian situation in Gaza is beyond catastrophic. Since October 2023, the government has increased support for the humanitarian response in Gaza by over 630 million kronor. In December, the government decided to significantly strengthen its preparedness to pay out humanitarian aid during the year by allocating an additional 800 million kronor for the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the region.

Furthermore, Swedish support in Gaza continues through extensive core funding to a number of central humanitarian actors. It is a flexible support that is paid out early in the year so that the humanitarian actors can quickly scale up the response where it is needed most. In this way, the government, in ongoing dialogue with our partners, can ensure that the Swedish support is designed in the best way to alleviate the suffering of distressed civilians and meet the enormous acute needs on the ground both in Gaza and in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and in other parts of the region.

The Government is continuously reviewing our partners and analyzing our methods of work in order to design Swedish aid policy in the best possible way. The Government has chosen to channel the significantly increased support in the region through actors other than UNRWA. The most important thing right now is that aid and life-saving supplies truly reach the civilian population in distress.

When it comes to UNRWA, I note that we have a somewhat black-and-white opposition, but it is therefore possible to keep two things in mind at the same time. Regarding the Israeli legislative proposals concerning UNRWA, which risk making it almost impossible for the organization to operate in Gaza, I want to emphasize once again that the government stands by our criticism of the proposals. And the government has, in its own contacts and together with other Nordic countries and with the EU, urged Israel to ensure continued humanitarian access for UNRWA.

I have also personally taken up this matter with Israel's Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar. And in response to Morgan Johansson's question: Yes, I also had contact with Jordan's Foreign Minister Safadi in connection with this decision being made.

On the one hand, we therefore stand firmly by our criticism, and on the other hand, we want to ensure in the best possible way that the aid – and it is extensive from Sweden's side – reaches the suffering civilian population as well as it possibly can.

When it comes to concrete steps for a two-state solution, the government is convinced that a sustainable peace between Israel and Palestine must be built on such a solution. The government supports the EU's and the UN's work to establish a credible process and is in close contact with like-minded parties and representatives for the region. I have had meetings with foreign ministerial colleagues from both Israel and Palestine but also from Jordan and Egypt to both convey our view and receive their assessments. The issue is also constantly on the agenda for the EU's foreign ministers' meetings.

The government has furthermore been a driving force for the introduction of sanctions against extremist settlers and supports the work to reform and strengthen the Palestinian Authority. Through the aid, opportunities are created to provide support for a long-term sustainable two-state solution and to counter violence-promoting extremism. Joint diplomatic efforts, including with regional actors, are and remain important to counter further escalations.

The government will continue to work for a two-state solution also concretely and does so together with others.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Foreign Affairs, for some answers! But it still feels like some questions remain hanging in the air.

I would first and foremost like to thank for the extra humanitarian support that the government has actually provided. It is much needed. It comes late, but it is good. However, it will in no way contribute to a sustainable solution to the conflict itself. That is what I want to talk a bit more about right now.

It has been pointed out by others here in the chamber that the government says one thing and does another, especially when it comes to the view on UNRWA. It is not only in Gaza, the West Bank and in Israel that UNRWA is active, but it also applies primarily in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan, where more than 3 million Palestinian refugees are located.

What is the idea? Who is going to take care of these Palestinian refugees when Sweden withdraws support for UNRWA? What has been planned there? It is not just about humanitarian aid. It is actually about education, school, healthcare, and so on.

There is a bit of surgical precision in terms of which organizations the government is removing support for. It is not just UNRWA and the companion program, but it is also eight Palestinian and Israeli MR organizations, all the organizations that Israel has been out criticizing. Precisely those organizations that Israel does not like, the government goes after and ends the support to. It feels like more than a coincidence. It is a strange coincidence.

The long-awaited ceasefire, which came on Sunday, was necessary. And we have seen that significantly more humanitarian aid has entered Gaza. It is long-awaited and very much needed.

At the same time, we have seen a massive increase in violence on the West Bank over the last few days. It is rumored that this is a concession to the most far-right in the Israeli government. They are allowing increased violence, and they have set villages and houses on fire. Even the Israeli military has struck in some places.

It is then that we must increase the support for civil society on the ground. We must increase the support for Palestinian and Israeli civil society. We must ensure that observers from around the world are on site and monitor and can report on this.

One can see the need for this support and the importance of these organizations. In an appeal in Svenska Dagbladet at the beginning of the year, a number of Israeli organizations told exactly how important the support for Israeli and Palestinian civil society is. Do not back down on that!

It has been said previously that UNRWA is dysfunctional. But report after report and investigation after investigation show that UNRWA maintains high quality in the work it does and is very cost-effective.

Then it is about the long-term issue and the statement that came from the ICJ, the International Court of Justice, in July last year. The government says that it supports the court's advisory opinion. But it has not answered the UN Secretary-General's request regarding what measures it has taken to implement the conclusions in the opinion, that is, how the Swedish government intends to live up to the advisory opinions that the ICJ made in July. I would very much like to hear something about that.

Finally: Has the Foreign Minister called the ambassador to get an answer on how the humanitarian aid is intended to get through? People are talking about Israel's responsibility for the area. But has an answer been demanded on how this is supposed to work in practice?

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! When I debated with the Foreign Minister this autumn, she told, a bit proudly actually, if I remember correctly, that she together with Jordan had been chair of a meeting in the UN about just UNRWA in connection with her being at the UN General Assembly meeting.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs is responsible for how Sweden votes in the UN General Assembly and also for whether we sit in other UN bodies. The opposition has several times criticized how Sweden has voted in the UN. This time, we are actually not criticizing how Sweden votes, but rather how one acts, in that one is not consistent – one votes for UNRWA but then withdraws the support.

In six days, the law will enter into force that prohibits UNRWA from operating in Israel. I naturally wonder what the consequences will be for Israel. We hear that people have signaled, and that is very good. But is it more than loud protests that will meet Israel when one prohibits the UN from operating and helping people?

This is actually completely unique. Right now, aid is entering Gaza thanks to the ceasefire, and UNRWA needs more support than ever. But at exactly this time, the government decides that we should send 0 kronor to the organization that contributes to stopping famine among Palestinians, providing healthcare to Palestinians, and providing education to Palestinians. What the government is doing is pitting UN agencies against each other, and it contradicts the UN's internal priorities. Support for UN agencies has been cut during this entire mandate period with a reduced aid budget, and now they are playing UN agencies against each other.

Mr. Speaker! I experience that this government speaks with a divided tongue. One thing is said politically, but with the economic means, one acts in a completely different way. This leads to the Palestinian people suffering even more.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I can imagine that there is a lot to it in what Håkan Svenneling said at the end, that is to say that what we have seen the outcome of here is some form of discussion within the government. The feeling one gets is that one part of the UD does not quite know what the other part of the UD is doing. One week, as mentioned, one votes for a resolution in the UN General Assembly where it is stated that UNRWA is absolutely crucial to being able to fulfill these tasks in the future. Just a few weeks later, one withdraws all financial support to precisely UNRWA. This latter part is the Minister for Development Cooperation's question. It could very well be that an internal discussion has been held at the UD which has now obviously been won by those who are against UNRWA.

This is very serious. The Foreign Affairs Committee had a visit yesterday from Tom Fletcher, head of the UN organization OCHA, which coordinates humanitarian support. He is once again examining how important UNRWA is to be able to solve the very large tasks that now lie ahead of us. It can only be stated that the government, through this decision, breaks with the UN line, the EU line, and actually even its own policy. Here we have not received any answers.

I did, however, receive an answer from the Minister for Foreign Affairs on the Jordan issue. Yes, says the Minister for Foreign Affairs, we have had contact with Jordan. One wonders what Jordan said during that contact. Last time you were going to withdraw support for UNRWA, there were very strong reactions from, among others, Jordan. One can very well imagine that it has been the same here, but that the government this time simply did not care about it.

Here, Sweden really stands out as a country that makes decisions that almost no other countries make. The only reasonable thing in this situation, I think, is to reconsider the question of support for UNRWA, so that we can once again contribute to maintaining this organization, which is so enormously important for millions of Palestinians.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for further answers.

UNRWA has existed since 1949 and has the UN mandate to protect and support Palestinian refugees. It concerns several million Palestinian refugees and their relatives. Since Israel was formed, they have been displaced from their homes. Now Israel is violating the UN Charter through this law that prohibits UNRWA. It is deeply serious.

To then stop the support to UNRWA, as Sweden recently decided, is to completely fall into the Israeli trap and contribute to Israel's attack on the UN and international law. Who will take over the responsibility for millions of Palestinian refugees in Gaza, the West Bank, Jordan, and Lebanon? Does the minister not see that the support to UNRWA is so much more than just getting food to starving Palestinians in Gaza, even if it is naturally extremely important and prioritized? It is about the entire Palestinian refugee issue.

What is the Swedish decision to withdraw support for UNRWA actually based on? Obviously, it is not established researchers and independent investigations. Is it the case that Sweden's government would rather listen to Israel's smear campaign than to serious researchers and the UN? Despite the fact that the Foreign Minister, just a few weeks ago at the UN, stood behind the position that UNRWA is indispensable, support is being withdrawn. This is inconsistent, incomprehensible, and completely wrong.

The Swedish government should stick to the positions it has taken in the UN that UNRWA is irreplaceable and reinstate support for UNRWA. In order to seriously be able to stand up for a two-state solution, Sweden must speak out about the Israeli occupation. Sweden must also support organizations that work for democracy, human rights and a two-state solution, both human rights organizations in Palestine and Israel and Swedish civil society.

Do over and do it right! Resume the support for UNRWA and stand firm on your own positions in the UN!

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

Peter Hultqvist (S)

Mr. Speaker! I have understood that the concept of "two things in the head at the same time" is something that the Prime Minister and various cabinet ministers use with increasing frequency. This is part of some kind of instruction that one should not listen so much to other opinions.

But in this matter, I think it seems that the brain cells in the Government Offices are not harmonizing with each other. It cannot be that one moment, with different types of statements, you talk about how important UNRWA is and the next moment you withdraw the support. This will affect large groups of Palestinians. UNRWA is the UN agency that best manages schools, healthcare, and medical care. In practice, this means an execution of the Israeli will, and it leads to us having major problems in refugee camps.

I want to point out once again that this is not just about refugee camps in Palestinian territory. It is also about Lebanon, Syria and Jordan.

Then we have the new US ambassador. At this time, when there is talk of a two-state solution, he says about the West Bank that it is called Judea and Samaria. It is a way of using words and designations that takes it entirely away from being occupied land and in some way gives an impression that it would be okay to have this type of settlements.

It would be very beneficial if the government could be extremely clear regarding the illegal settlement policy and the 750,000 settlers and in practice say that this must not occur. Please also describe what credibility there is in this two-state solution process; right now it looks quite bleak.

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

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Mr. Speaker! Despite the international community having agreed to meet the enormous humanitarian needs, we have seen that the aid is not reaching all the way into Gaza. It is now absolutely central that the ceasefire alleviates the immense suffering of the civilian population in Gaza and that the influx of humanitarian aid increases dramatically. We have already seen immediate humanitarian effects of the ceasefire. At the same time, we know that the needs are enormous and that countless challenges still remain to ensure that the aid reaches all the way to those in need.

The government has, as I have mentioned earlier, increased the support to Gaza and the region to 800 million kronor. In order for the support to reach, unhindered humanitarian access is required, including conditions for humanitarian personnel and humanitarian transports to be able to move safely to reach all parts of Gaza. The government has actively pursued this issue since October 2023 and will, together with other partners, continue to set clear demands for compliance with international humanitarian law.

The government is continuously reviewing Sweden's humanitarian commitment to ensure that Swedish aid funds are distributed in the best possible way and that the civilian population also benefits in the best possible way. Looking at the overall picture, the government has now chosen to significantly increase support to the civilian population through other humanitarian partners than UNRWA. For us, as has been said, it is the well-being of the civilian population that is at the center and not a single organization.

Regarding the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion, I have many times both here and in the EU Committee been very clear that Sweden fully and completely stands behind the opinion. It is more important than ever to maintain a rules-based world order.

Sweden therefore stands fully behind the opinion. I can state that it also corresponds in important parts with the EU's policy. We are now discussing within the EU what consequences the advisory opinion and the adopted general assembly resolution will have.

All Palestinian groups that wish to play a role in a future Palestine must, as the Palestinian Authority has done, distance themselves from violence and terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist and adhere to the agreements that have been entered into with Israel on the Palestinian side.

Israel must, on its part, stand firm on the two-state solution and cease its settlement policy, which I have said many times, Peter Hultqvist. It violates international law, undermines the two-state solution and contributes to an elevated level of conflict.

We expect both Israel and Palestine to live up to their international commitments and entered agreements.

No, Jacob Risberg, I have not found reason to summon the ambassador because I spoke directly with his superior, the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Foreign Affairs, for this debate! It has been quite clarifying, but there are a number of questions that still hang in the air. I actually have two questions left, possibly also a third, which I would like to get answers to in the Minister for Foreign Affairs' closing remarks.

It is very good that the government stands up for the International Court of Justice's opinion. But when will the government answer the Secretary-General's request regarding what measures Sweden has taken to implement the International Court of Justice's conclusions in the manner he has requested?

The second question concerns the view on UNRWA and the legislation that Israel has introduced. It is very good that the Minister has spoken with his colleague in the Israeli government. When one has expressed disappointment over the law or one's opposition to it, has one also demanded that Israel take the responsibility that Israel has as an occupying power? Israel still has a responsibility towards the civilian population in the occupied territories.

UNRWA has since it was formed in 1949, and especially after the Six-Day War in 1967, when an agreement was entered into with Israel to continue operating in the occupied territories, benefited Israel during all these years, because it has taken responsibility for a large part of the Palestinian civilian population in the occupied territories. When UNRWA is now prohibited, will the government then demand that Israel take its responsibility as an occupying power? It is about responsibility for healthcare, education, food, supplies, and housing for the civilian population until the day the occupation ends.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs has several times said that she is against the settlement policy. I would very much like to hear her express that we also want to see an end to the occupation.

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

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Mr. Speaker! In the discussions I have had with Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar, it is precisely this that I have raised, that is, the obligation that Israel has, also according to the provisional measures, to ensure that the civilian population can receive a share of the humanitarian efforts that the international community is trying to contribute.

Regarding the court's advisory opinion, it is now all the more urgent to continue the efforts to advocate for a negotiated two-state solution and thus also an end to the occupation. Sweden and the EU are convinced that the only long-term sustainable solution to the conflict is a two-state solution, where Israel and Palestine live side by side in peace and security. The government continues to advocate for this in every possible way.

I would like to thank Jacob Risberg for the debate.

The interpellation debate was hereby concluded.

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