Response to interpellation 2024/25:47 on Israel and international law in Lebanon

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Madam Speaker! Ola Möller has asked me what measures I intend to take against Israel so that the country will follow international law.

Answers to interpellations

Sweden, like the rest of the EU, supports Israel's right to defend itself against Hezbollah's attacks, but that right must be exercised in accordance with international law and international humanitarian law.

The government is always clear in its message that civilians must be protected. This applies to Hezbollah, which places military installations in direct connection to homes and places where civilians are located. It also applies to the way in which Israel carries out its attacks.

The International Court of Justice has previously established that Israel must do more to protect civilians in Gaza, and it has also ruled on a number of provisional measures. Sweden gives its full support to the International Court of Justice. All involved parties must take their responsibility and comply with their obligations.

Sweden also stands behind the EU's statement of 26 September, in which all relevant actors were urged to take measures for de-escalation of the situation and to immediately implement a ceasefire along the so-called blue line as well as to work towards the full implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 to ensure that the civilian population on both sides can return safely.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin the debate by being very clear. I have had many and very tough debates with the Minister for Foreign Affairs in her previous role as Minister for Migration. We are really not the best of friends in any way.

But the minister is my colleague and a representative of the democracy that I hold in the highest regard in our country. To attack opponents by throwing things at them is reprehensible regardless of where it happens, but it is extra serious when it happens here inside the Riksdag. It is reprehensible and quite frankly fucking wrong. The Foreign Minister has my full support against this type of attack. An attack on a representative of democracy is an attack on democracy as a whole. It simply should not occur, no matter how much we dislike each other's opinions.

Madam Speaker! We see 2,300 civilians killed, 11,000 injured, 6 hospitals attacked, shelters being bombed, 1.2 million people fleeing and 500,000 who have fled from Lebanon into Syria. It says a lot about how bad it is in Lebanon that people choose to flee to Syria. Villages far from southern Lebanon are attacked, and bridges, aid convoys and rescue workers are attacked. Humanitarian corridors are attacked, Lebanon's army is attacked and the UN is attacked - all in one month.

It is a month that began with a terrorist attack where communication equipment was blown up. Intentional mining, in violation of paragraph 70 of international customary law, explodes in grocery stores, among civilians, among healthcare personnel, in homes and among playing children. It is an action that Belgium's Vice Prime Minister De Sutter bravely called what it is: an act of terrorism. To then call the state that carries out such an act of terrorism a terror state lies very close to hand.

Madam Speaker! Let me be clear again. Hezbollah's attacks on Israel violate international law. They must be condemned. Hezbollah has just as little right to attack Israel as Israel has to attack Lebanon.

There is nothing justifiable in sending rockets towards other countries, and Iran's responsibility in this is very great. Already long before the attack from Hamas on the despicable October 7th, we Social Democrats wanted that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard should be classified as a terrorist organization. The then Minister for Foreign Affairs argued that it was not something that was needed. His boss thought the same, because it was the government's position.

Today we know that both the then Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister made a completely wrong assessment. Stronger action against the Revolutionary Guard would have weakened Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthi rebels. That the government has not seen that until now is regrettable and weak, but it is obviously welcome that it does so now.

I submitted the interpellation at a time when Israel's killing machine had not yet rolled into Lebanon with full force. The act of terror committed against thousands of Lebanese through the indiscriminate attack that occurred a month ago is the basis for my question.

Israel mocks international law and international humanitarian law. The country attacks the UN in a way that has led to the UN Secretary-General being declared persona non grata and UN troops being attacked. For us Swedes with the memory of the Israeli terrorist group Stern League's murder of Folke Bernadotte, extra alarm bells should ring when Israel behaves this way towards the UN. But above all, Israel is annihilating Lebanon and Palestine. Israeli ministers have both before and during the current attack on Lebanon said that Lebanon should be taken back to the Stone Age. We know from Gaza that the Israelis mean such statements seriously.

In light of this, I want to ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs what she and the government concretely – not through declarations, condemnations, and talk – intend to do to stop Israel's abuses against its neighboring countries. What measures, which are not just hot air in cool parliamentary halls, do the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the government intend to take against Israel so that something actually happens on the ground?

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! I would also like to express my deep regret for what happened in this chamber two weeks ago. We may disagree on many things, but we do not resort to acts of violence to get what we want or to prevent other people from expressing what they think. We do that through words, and we do that by conducting an honest debate. We do that, for example, here.

There are thousands of people in this country who every day fight for us to experience a lasting peace, above all in the Middle East and particularly in the wake of what Israel is currently carrying out in Gaza and in Lebanon. But this government has chosen to stand behind the Israeli regime, which calls Palestinians animals, which conducts an apartheid policy in its own state and which actively murders children and women. The government stands behind this by not taking sufficient measures to stop the atrocities that Israel is guilty of.

And it is perhaps not so strange, when one thinks about it, since we have a Foreign Minister and a Prime Minister who simultaneously express that different valuations of people are being made. Or how else is one to interpret it when the Prime Minister, for example, says that there are different valuations in different types of hatred harbored towards people and that it would be worse with antisemitism than with Islamophobia? It is not possible to make a distinction between the two things. All forms of racism are loathsome and must be condemned equally harshly.

Vänsterpartiet has been a consistent voice for peace between Israel and Palestine. We also propose an immediate and permanent ceasefire. Unhindered humanitarian aid to Gaza must be allowed, arms exports to Israel must be stopped, and all military contacts must be severed.

Now Israel has also chosen to enter Lebanon and conduct warfare. One certainly has the right to defend oneself, but one does not have the right to murder civilians. One has also chosen to attack UN forces. The government has indeed said that it is not good, but what other measures has the Foreign Minister taken? Has one, for example, called Israel's ambassador to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs to hold them accountable? I would like to know that.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! The war that is currently taking place in the Palestinian territories and in Lebanon is the worst humanitarian crisis of our time. Over 40,000 people have died, most of them civilians. 80 percent of Gaza lies in ruins. Millions of people are traumatized for generations to come.

I wanted to join this interpellation debate with the hope that we could get clear statements on what Sweden as a country, as a member of the EU and as a member of the UN, will concretely do to, together with the rest of the international community, try to achieve first a de-escalation and then a ceasefire in the war. The Foreign Minister's response to the interpellation, however, unfortunately provides no guidance, rather the opposite. There are no statements regarding any concrete measures from the Swedish side.

Unfortunately, this is what has become the image of the Swedish government's actions during this year: silence and passivity. The latest example was when Sweden abstained in the UN when the General Assembly voted on a resolution to support the International Court of Justice's ruling this summer on the conflict, a ruling that clearly and explicitly states that Israel's settlements in the West Bank are illegal and must be evacuated. 142 countries voted for the resolution, 14 countries voted against, and 43 countries abstained, including Sweden.

One of the countries that voted in favor was our neighboring country Finland, which is also governed by a right-wing government. They voted for the resolution with a very clear statement of reasons. They referred to their own history and said: Our country, Finland, is a country that itself has experience of attacks and occupation. Precisely because of that, it was said, it is particularly important to stand up for international law and international law in all situations and in all contexts.

So, this is what Finland did. They stood up for international law. But Sweden did not. The reason Sweden gave was that it was an excessively high requirement for Israel to cancel the occupation and withdraw within one year. It would therefore be too fast, according to the Swedish government. Too fast – the occupation has, after all, been ongoing for over 50 years. Israel should have canceled it and withdrawn a long time ago, as was promised in the Oslo Accords 30 years ago.

We have another major conflict right now, in Ukraine. It is extremely important that the world signals that no double standards apply here. International law applies everywhere. In the same way that we demand that Russia leaves Ukraine, we must also demand that Israel leaves occupied areas and halts its settlement policy.

Other countries are acting very actively - for example France, for example Spain, for example Ireland. Now Sweden must also act to put pressure on all parties to achieve an immediate ceasefire and negotiations that can also lead to a release of the hostages.

Pressure must be exerted on Iran, which acts in the background with its support for Hamas and Hezbollah. We demand that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard be placed on a terror list and that the sanctions against Iran be expanded.

But pressure must also be exerted on Israel. A united opposition demands that the EU's trade agreement with Israel be frozen until Israel complies with international law. From the Social Democratic side, we also demand that the sanctions against the militant settlers in the West Bank be significantly expanded. They cannot be allowed to continue harassing, killing, and displacing Palestinians. We demand that the settlers' goods produced on occupied land are immediately banned from the EU's internal market.

So, there are concrete proposals here that the Foreign Minister can proceed with if she simply wishes to. My question is: Is she prepared to do so?

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! The interpellator Ola Möller from the Socialdemokraterna has posed questions to the Minister for Foreign Affairs regarding whether international humanitarian law is being observed in Lebanon. The member has chosen to focus unilaterally on Israel's actions, but the question requires, in my view, a broader perspective.

A crucial aspect that is completely omitted in the interpellation is Hezbollah's military presence in southern Lebanon, where Hezbollah, which is listed as a terrorist organization by the EU, constantly attacks Israel.

Hizbollah has fired over 12,000 rockets into Israel since October 8 last year, that is, already from the first day after Hamas's terror attack. This imminent threat to civilians has meant that at least 60,000 Israelis have still been evacuated from the northern parts of the country. It is well documented that Hezbollah is a proxy of Iran and receives support from the revolutionary guard, IRGC, in the form of weapons and ammunition.

It is impossible to ignore that these actions violate UN Resolution 1701 from 2006, which aimed to end the hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. The resolution requires that Hezbollah be disarmed and that the area south of the Litani River be free of weapons, beyond the weapons held by Lebanon's own armed forces and the UN peacekeeping forces, Unifil. It also calls for blocking weapons deliveries to Hezbollah and for respecting Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Madam Speaker! The UN resolution has aimed to create security and stability in southern Lebanon. But in reality, Hezbollah has operated unhindered there for a long time. They have stockpiled weapons as well as built rocket launch sites and an extensive tunnel system along the border with Israel, sometimes even within sight of UN posts. To not speak of these violations means that we ignore one of the most significant factors driving the conflict.

The reports of civilian deaths resulting from the exploding pagers and from the war against Hezbollah must be taken seriously. To claim that these are unambiguous cases of violations of international law, as Belgium's Deputy Prime Minister does, is however very far-reaching and something that is contradicted by certain international law experts.

It is very important and positive that Israel is now investigating the incidents where UNIFIL forces have been affected. It is necessary to hold those responsible accountable.

Madam Speaker! If Sweden is to be a constructive actor in the region, we must hold all parties accountable and promote a long-term solution without Iran-controlled actors such as the terrorist organizations Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Hamas. With the death of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar yesterday, I hope that we now see the end of the war in Gaza and that Hamas has forever ended its terrorization of Israelis and Palestinians. A dismantled Hamas opens the way toward a future two-state solution. In the same way, a severely weakened Hezbollah will lead to a Lebanon without devastating Iranian involvement.

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Madam Speaker! I think it is abhorrent that people become victims in wars, that children become victims in wars. I also think it is wrong to use conflicts taking place around the world to score political points here in Sweden. I want the members from the opposition here to examine themselves. Which meetings have they attended? Whom have they met? How has one incited demonstrations against the government? When one sits here and expresses sympathy with the Foreign Minister, one should also think about what role one's own party has played in the atmosphere that has been built up.

Madam Speaker! I wonder if the interpellator Ola Möller remembers how the war started. It started on October 7 when the terror sect Hamas attacked the most peaceful Israelis, those who most of all wanted peace between Israel and Palestine. They murdered young and old, raped, mutilated, and dismembered. They burned infants alive before their parents' eyes. The message was that all Israelis would be wiped out, regardless of how much they desired peace with their neighbors. Hamas proclaimed that it was only the beginning.

And the deadliest attack on Jews after the Holocaust was celebrated in streets and squares. It is very sad that it also occurred in Sweden. It is also very sad that it was also celebrated in an association that Ola Möller has been and spoken before, despite that they have repeatedly made themselves guilty of very gross antisemitism.

What the interpellants, Samuel Gonzalez Westling and Morgan Johansson did not notice in their speeches is that the war currently taking place in the Middle East is about Israel's survival. Israel is threatened from all sides, from Hamas, from Hezbollah, and from the Houthis in Yemen. Behind this stands Iran, which is the worst, most anti-human dictatorship in the world. There, women are treated worse than animals. There, women can be murdered and imprisoned for wearing the veil in an incorrect way, which happened to Mahsa Amini.

Israel has the right to defend its existence. Anger must be directed at those who not only want to wipe out Israel but also want to wipe out democracy. The people in both Palestine and Lebanon want democracy, just like the people in Israel, and need democracy.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank you for an important interpellation debate so far and a very good answer from the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

I can begin by stating that we in the Swedish Riksdag are actually in agreement across all party lines on many things. For example, we are all in agreement that international law must be followed. There is no political conflict regarding that in Swedish politics. We all mourn when there are civilian casualties in war. Regardless of where it happens and regardless of who dies, we all mourn across party lines. We all say that we are against it when UN forces are attacked, regardless of where in the world it happens.

We are all – it may surprise one or another who is listening – Zionists. Even the Left Party (V) are Zionists because one aligns with the idea of a two-state solution. That presupposes that there are two states. The basis of Zionism is that Jews should have their own country where Israel lies as a refuge. It is an important component in this. In that sense, the Left Party (V) are also Zionists.

We are all against Islamophobia. That is something we also have in common. One can question whether all parties take their work against antisemitism within their own parties seriously enough. We have seen several examples of antisemitism in, for example, Vänsterpartiet. But we are, in any case, all against Islamophobia.

Something that we apparently do not completely agree on is Israel's right to defend itself. In his speech just now, Member Möller questioned Israel's right to defend itself by fighting military targets in Lebanon. It is clear that when one is fired upon by a terrorist organization in Lebanon, in this case Hezbollah, one has the right to defend itself by striking those targets. It would be good if Member Möller clarified that the Social Democrats also consider that Israel has the right to defend itself by striking military targets in Lebanon, Madam Speaker.

It is strange to be in favor of a two-state solution without simultaneously thinking that two states should be able to exist. For a state to be able to exist, it must be able to defend itself.

It is also strange, as Möller did, to compare Israel's defensive war with Hezbollah's attacks. One, Hezbollah, is a terrorist organization that attacks civilians. The other is a democratic state that defends its civilians by attacking military targets.

Madam Speaker! I believe that many of us in Sweden have celebrated how Israel has struck down Hezbollah's leadership. I believe that many in Sweden yesterday celebrated how Israel struck down one of Hamas's highest leaders and the mastermind behind the horrific terror attack on October 7, Sinwar.

Madam Speaker! If we are to have a two-state solution, both Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as all other Iranian proxies, must be eliminated. It is not possible to have a two-state solution, a sustainable peace, if those terrorist organizations are allowed to continue to exist.

Another thing that is needed is that the UN has the trust to play a mediating role. I and others in this chamber have long pointed out that the UN has been relatively much harder on Israel than on many other countries in the world. It is also a recurring problem that the UN Secretary-General Guterres has expressed himself in an unbalanced, unreasonable and disproportionate way when it comes to Israel. It is also a problem that, just a stone's throw from the UN's peacekeeping forces, there has been infrastructure belonging to Hezbollah.

These things undermine confidence in the UN and the important role they could play. I would therefore like to ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs what we should do to restore confidence in the UN, despite all their gross missteps.

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

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Madam Speaker! The Government views, as I said in my previous speech, with dismay the military escalation in the Middle East over the past weeks. The escalation has resulted in a large number of civilians killed and injured, including children.

Sweden urges all parties to exercise restraint and gives full support to the diplomatic efforts being made, even though it is very difficult at the moment.

There is a significant risk that the situation will escalate further, which would have devastating consequences not only for Lebanon and the region as a whole but also for the EU. This must be avoided. Together with the rest of the EU, Sweden urges all sides, including Iran and its proxies, to show restraint.

As I have said before, the EU and Sweden stand behind Israel's right to defend itself. I wish that more in this chamber were clear about that. But as I and the government have constantly said, that right must be exercised in accordance with international law and international humanitarian law. I do not also perceive that there are any political differences here.

Both Israel and Hezbollah have an obligation to comply with international humanitarian law, which aims to alleviate the suffering of civilians in armed conflicts. International humanitarian law applies to all parties in a conflict, regardless of whether another party does not comply with it. How the armed conflict arose does not affect the applicability of international humanitarian law either.

I received a question about what the government has concretely done. The government has done a lot and is continuously doing a lot, but let me mention some examples.

The Government has in all contexts been clear on the requirement that international law must be followed. The Government has demanded that Israel respect the International Court of Justice, including the requirement for provisional measures. The Government has been involved in developing proposals within the EU's sanctions regime for the listing of extremist settlers. The Government has conveyed clear messages to the Israeli government regarding the requirement that it must follow international law, and has also done so directly to the Foreign Minister.

The government has given support to the roadmap that the USA, with several others, has presented for a ceasefire, a sustainable peace and, in the long term, also a two-state solution. We have also signed letters in support of the UN Secretary-General after Israel declared him persona non grata.

We have stood behind an EU statement condemning the attacks on Unifil and which also demands an explanation from Israel. But if the information is correct - in connection with Joar Forssell's question - that Unifil has known that Hezbollah has created various forms of defense installations and camps in close proximity to Unifil's forces, Unifil must, naturally, also explain that.

Above all, I want to emphasize that we have increased the humanitarian aid to Lebanon by significant sums - over 80 million kronor - in order, among other things, to alleviate the suffering for the children there.

Morgan Johansson often brings up the resolution that Sweden recently abstained from. The reason was that the resolution was based on a statement from the International Court of Justice. We stand behind the International Court of Justice; I have been clear about that in the debate and also in other contexts. The problem was that the resolution went further. That made it difficult for us, because we want to stand behind the International Court of Justice's statements but not make additions to or changes in the statement. Therefore, we chose, together with Morgan Johansson's Social Democratic colleagues in Denmark, to abstain in this rather difficult issue. But we do, therefore, stand fully behind the International Court of Justice.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! First, I want to urge Boriana Åberg to open a history book. This conflict hardly began on October 7. One year one could start discussing is 1967. Another is 1948, but one can also go even further back. It is not correct when one says that the conflict between Israel and Palestine began on October 7.

Regarding the question of visiting associations, I have stepped away from associations for the very reason that people there have expressed themselves in a way that I have not stood behind. I have clearly declared that to them. I urge Boriana Åberg to listen to the debate from last Tuesday, so she will get a clear declaration of what I think about both antisemitism and all other forms of racism.

It is unfortunate that Member Forssell stands here and says that he stands up for international law when the same member retweeted a wanted poster that had "shalom" written on it immediately after the terror attack with wanted posters, when children were blown up in grocery stores and hospital staff were injured and killed. I believe that in that case, one should be a bit careful about referring to international law principles.

Since we are on the subject of international law principles, everyone has the right to defend themselves within the framework of international law - Israel, Palestine and Lebanon. No talk about the matter!

At the same time as we have this debate, the killing of innocent people continues in Gaza and on the West Bank. I believe that neither the Foreign Minister nor Madam Speaker has escaped the films showing how people burned inside the hospital that was bombed a few days ago. They were images of living people writhing in the flames until their lives were extinguished.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs is quick to speak of human shields, as she does in her response here. But then I would like to hear what the Minister for Foreign Affairs thinks about the IDF using human shields. For example, the Israeli organization Breaking the Silence, with former soldiers, tells how the IDF sends Palestinian prisoners into tunnels and houses, sometimes with body cameras, to then fire in grenades when they notice that opponents, terrorists, are there.

One reason that the Breaking the Silence soldiers have stated for why the IDF does so is that they thought the Israeli dog patrols thought the losses of dogs were too great. Instead, they began using Palestinian prisoners. This is what former Israeli soldiers tell. If the Foreign Minister does not believe me, she can invite Breaking the Silence to the UD to hear more, or she can look up the New York Times where this was also written earlier in the week.

I condemn Israel as well as Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, the Houthi rebels and other organizations that violate international law. Everyone makes mistakes. But I hear no condemnation of Israel's crimes against international law from the Foreign Minister or from any of the other members on the Foreign Minister's side on this issue. Could we not at least get that? Condemn Israel for burning children in hospitals! In that case, we stand equal in this. Then it becomes as Boriana Åberg says, that is to say that we should all be able to stand on the same side.

The government, however, does not do that. Israel's ambassador strutted around here in the Riksdag this week. Imagine if Russia's ambassador had come in here! Then it would have been stopped and caused hell to break loose. But no, Israel's ambassador is still welcome everywhere, but not Russia's. That is not playing equally according to international law principles.

Everything the Foreign Minister says is just hot air - except for the 80 million to Lebanon, which I welcome. But then one has also been involved in destroying UNRWA by cutting back on the support to them. It is something that truly harms both Lebanon and Palestine.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! Let me be very clear: Everyone who violates international law should be condemned. It may be Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthi rebels, Iran or Russia. But it must also be Israel, when they violate international law. That being said, Israel's existence is indisputable, and it is also self-evident. Let there be no doubt about that! But in the same way that their existence is indisputable, the existence of Palestine must also be.

Now Netanyahu is trying to divert attention from what is happening in Gaza and from the brutal genocide that Israel is carrying out against the Palestinian population located there.

Let us look back one year in time. A year ago, many on the right said that Israeli bombings of hospitals or schools were something that could never happen because it would violate international law. But the other day, we saw images of burning children in tents. Is that an international law-compliant way to wage war? Where are the government's condemnations of Israel?

It must be clear that this is unacceptable and that it must come to an end. Israel must withdraw, and they must initiate a permanent ceasefire now. The only way to achieve a lasting peace is by ending Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! There is only one path to long-term peace and stability for both Israelis and Palestinians, and that is a two-state solution. That was what was being moved towards 30 years ago through the Oslo Accords. But the murder of Yitzhak Rabin and, like, Israel's settlement policy over 25 years has undermined the possibilities for it. Now there are 700,000 settlers in the West Bank. This, together with Iran's support for Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist organizations, has undermined this possibility.

My perception is that we must try to find a way back to the negotiating table. It may feel like it is very far away right now, when the war is raging at its worst. It is also the case that it will not happen by itself. International pressure from the outside is required for this to occur. Such international pressure is precisely what we are requesting.

That is why we argue that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard in Iran must be put on a terror list. It is a way to put pressure on Iran, which we must do. We must expand the sanctions against Iran.

That is also why we propose that the EU should freeze its trade agreement with Israel as long as international law is not upheld. That trade agreement was established once precisely to stimulate a peaceful settlement. Now, the conditions are no longer there. In that case, it is natural to say: No, we cannot continue with this as long as you do not uphold international law!

It was 124 countries that voted for the resolution we are talking about. Among them were Finland, France, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Norway and Iceland. An overwhelming majority of the member countries voted for, but not Sweden. It was weak, I think. One should have marked that international law applies everywhere.

I received no answer to my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs: What concrete measures does the government want to take to put pressure on both parties?

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I have understood that the interpellation concerns Israel and international law in Lebanon. Now the discussion has become much broader, and perhaps I personally have been involved in helping to broaden it.

To return to what we are going to discuss, I want to clarify that one of the greatest security risks in this conflict is Hezbollah's military presence in southern Lebanon. As a listed terrorist organization, Hezbollah has long acted as a proxy for the Iranian regime and its destabilizing actions throughout the region. As mentioned, they have over the past year fired thousands of rockets at civilian areas in Israel. This is an imminent threat that forces tens of thousands of people to live evacuated or under evacuation orders and constant uncertainty.

Hezbollah's actions do not constitute isolated acts but are part of Iran's broader strategy to exert power and influence over the region. Hezbollah's actions are furthermore a flagrant violation of UN resolution 1701, which explicitly required that Hezbollah be disarmed and that the areas south of the al-Litani river be free of weapons. Hezbollah also receives its funding and weaponry through Iran's revolutionary guard, IRGC, which further underscores Iran's long-term goal to destabilize the region.

Madam Speaker! To not address these crimes means to ignore one of the greatest threats to stability in the region. It is our duty to speak plainly about Hezbollah's and Iran's role and not let their actions continue.

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Ola Möller for his manner of speaking. He says that I need history lessons. I am very well aware of when the war began. I am also very well aware of what happened earlier – both in 1967 and 1973, the countries in the region tried to wipe out the only democracy, Israel.

By comparing Israel's ambassador with Russia's ambassador, Ola Möller commits an overstep that is not worthy of a member of the Riksdag.

I agree with Morgan Johansson's wise input - the parties must come to the negotiating table. And the negotiations shall begin with Hamas releasing the innocent women, elderly, men, and small children who are being held as hostages. These are innocent people who have been kidnapped for more than a year. There are small children who have lived longer in these dark tunnels than outside, that is to say, the greater part of their lives. This is what one must start with.

When one uses expressions such as "killing machine" and accuses Israel of conducting apartheid policies, one must remember how many Arabs from neighboring countries have sought refuge in Israel due to persecution because of sexual orientation and other reasons.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by turning towards the strange and absurd comparison between Israel's ambassador and Russia's ambassador. Russia has attacked Ukraine. Ukraine is defending itself. Hamas, Hezbollah and other Iran-backed proxies have attacked Israel. Israel is defending itself. It is very absurd to make such a comparison. I think we should collectively in this chamber turn against it.

Madam Speaker! I can state that I agree with Samuel Gonzalez Westling on much. It actually surprises me. Sometimes it does not sound that way in the debate. But both Vänsterpartiet and Liberalerna believe that a two-state solution is required. For there to be two states, both Vänsterpartiet and Liberalerna believe that a Palestinian state is needed - that goes without saying - and also an Israeli state. That is why both Vänsterpartiet and Liberalerna are Zionists.

Madam Speaker! Member Möller asked my colleague Member Åberg to open a history book to see that this conflict did not start on October 7. This war started on October 7. The conflict is longer than that. One can watch the old film The Prince of Egypt if one wants a multi-thousand-year historical exposé on how Jews have been persecuted in this part and other parts of the world. Just in this area, the pogroms against and the persecution of Jews have continued for many hundreds of years. Ever since Israel was founded, it has been attacked by neighboring countries and by terrorists in the six-day war, the Yom Kippur war, the first Intifada, and the second Intifada. Now people are standing and demonstrating in Sweden and other countries and calling for a third Intifada. Then it will surely be called for a fourth Intifada if we do not achieve a sustainable peace. That is why Morgan Johansson perhaps must take Möller by the ear and ensure that he too joins in on Zionism and a two-state solution.

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

ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN

I want to remind everyone of the topic for the debate: Israel and international law in Lebanon. This applies to all debaters.

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

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Madam Speaker! I first want to mention a bit about what Morgan Johansson was touching upon regarding the association council between the EU and Israel. The Government is of the opinion that the EU should try to use the association agreement as a platform for dialogue. This includes conveying critical messages and emphasizing Israel's obligations in relation to international law, including international humanitarian law. To choose to pause the association agreement in this situation, as the opposition proposes, is effectively to give up, and risks reducing the possibility for dialogue. In this situation, more, and not fewer, broad areas of cooperation for dialogue were needed where Sweden and the EU can convey their views to Israel. The Government is not giving up. I also listed eight measures that the Government has taken to try to de-escalate the conflict.

Madam Speaker! I will now move on to focus on Ola Möller, who also has the opportunity to replicate once more in the capacity of an interpellant.

I must say that I am somewhat concerned after Ola Möller's latest post. When I received the interpellation, I noted first and foremost that it is remarkably free of a description of Hezbollah's and Hamas's responsibility. At the same time, one also seems to downplay what actually happened on October 7, which, just as my colleagues have said, constituted the prelude to the war we are now seeing where Israel is trying to defend itself.

The atrocities committed on October 7 are so serious and heinous that I do not wish to go into a description of them again. But we must never forget what they actually meant.

If one actually looks at that attack, it is completely incomprehensible to compare Israel's ambassador with Russia's ambassador. Russia has, completely unprovoked, attacked Ukraine. Israel, on the other hand, has been attacked in the most despicable way. Ola Möller is very welcome to elaborate on that.

(Applause)

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! I am of the opinion that there is no international law difference between the actions that Israel has against Palestine where they occupy, and where the International Court of Justice has been clear that that occupation is illegal, and the occupation that Russia is doing of Ukraine. Ergo, therefore, it is the same between Israel's ambassador and Russia's ambassador. There should be a clarity. One should be equally harsh in sanctions against Israel as one is against Russia.

I bring the discussion back to Lebanon. The doctrine that Israel applies is called the Dahiya doctrine. It is based on bombing away all existing civil infrastructure so that the opponent cannot continue its existence in those areas. It is about expanding the zone of security. It has been applied in northern Gaza. It has been applied in large parts of Lebanon previously, including during the massacres in Sabra and Shatila under Ariel Sharon in 1982.

This is a way to destroy the opportunities for those who are perceived as or are actual opponents to be able to continue their activities and, above all, their existence. It is, therefore, the scorched earth tactic. In combination with the zero casualties doctrine, where Palestinians are used as human shields and the like, it becomes the running point in the issue of international law in Lebanon.

Does the Foreign Minister mean that the Dahiyad doctrine is compatible with international law? Can the Foreign Minister, if so, elaborate on how that type of stated doctrine is? Speak with Breaking the Silence, then you will get all the facts on this. Is the doctrine compatible with international law? It is being applied in Gaza. What applies in Gaza will happen in Lebanon, and it has happened. Six hospitals have been bombed and over 2,000 civilians have been killed in a month.

Speaking of all the condemnation of Hezbollah, I thought Member Magnus Berntsson's contribution here was wise. It was very good, and I agree. That is why we must act. That is why we wanted to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization long before October 7.

Is the Dahiyad doctrine compatible with international law, Minister for Foreign Affairs?

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

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Madam Speaker! I do not know how many times I shall repeat here in the speaker's chair that the government stands behind Israel's right to defend itself.

It concerns me that this is something that is not emphasized by Member Ola Möller. It will be interesting to find out whether his opinion, that Russia and Israel should be equated, is also something that the Social Democrats stand behind. We will certainly have reason to return to that.

The government has been clear, both I and other representatives, that international law must be followed by all parties. I have also been clear about this in the speaker's chair several times today.

I thought I would conclude by going back to what the interpellation is largely about, that is, the humanitarian situation in Lebanon and how the civilian population is affected by the war. Over 2,000 people have been killed and 9,000 injured, including many civilians. More than one million people are now fleeing in the country.

That is why Sweden has also increased the humanitarian support to Lebanon by a total of 83.5 million. The support is distributed between UNHCR, the Red Cross, Save the Children, and the UN's humanitarian country fund in Lebanon. Sweden's total humanitarian support to Lebanon for 2024 amounts to over 158 million.

In order for the help to reach, it is now central to ensure full, safe, and unimpeded humanitarian access. In all contexts where the government has the opportunity, we will also highlight the need to ensure access for humanitarian actors both in Lebanon and, naturally, also in Gaza. What is happening now affects the civilian population in a terrible way.

(Applause)

The interpellation debate was hereby concluded.

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