Response to interpellation 2025/26:261 on Sweden's responsibility in the West Bank according to international law
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns Sweden's responsibility on the West Bank according to international law. M argues that the settlement policy violates international law 1 and that the government stands behind the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion 1. M advocates for sanctions against extremist settlers and ministers 1 2 and emphasizes a restrictive view on arms exports 2. M argues that the trade agreement has not been paused due to a lack of support in the EU 2 and that the EU already has a policy of differentiation 3. M believes that S is trying to incite conflicts to benefit its own party 4. S argues that the government lacks concrete action 5 6 and does not use the human rights clause 5 6. S criticizes that the government has not resumed support for UNRWA 7 and argues that the government is making a political course change 6. S believes that national legislation is required that prohibits imports from illegal settlements 8 9 and that the government is not using sufficient tools to put pressure on Israel 9.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Madam Speaker! Johan Büser has asked me how the government assesses the threats of demolition and the settler violence against the population in Umm al-Khair from an international law perspective. Johan Büser has further asked what measures the government has taken or intends to take to work towards ensuring that the demolition orders in Umm al-Khair are not executed. Johan Büser has also asked me how the government ensures that Sweden lives up to its responsibility not to recognize, assist, or otherwise contribute to an illegal situation in the occupied West Bank, in line with the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion. Finally, Johan Büser has asked me whether I and the government intend to take initiative for further diplomatic or economic measures, nationally or within the EU, against individuals or structures responsible in cases where serious violations of international humanitarian law occur in the West Bank.
The government is and remains clear that the settlements and the settlement policy violate international law, undermine the two-state solution, and contribute to an elevated level of conflict. The only path to a lasting peace is through a negotiated two-state solution. We view the very serious developments in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, with great concern, with increased settler violence and continued settlement expansion. This must come to an end.
The government, together with several other countries, has on repeated occasions condemned the Israeli plans for extensive expansion of settlements in the West Bank, including in the E1 area. We call on Israel to cancel the E1 settlement plans, as well as the expansion of the settlements.
In February 2026, Israel's security cabinet approved further measures to strengthen control over the West Bank. The government has clearly condemned this and has urged Israel not to implement the decisions.
The Government stands fully and completely behind the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion of 19 July 2024 on Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territory. It is more urgent than ever to uphold a rules-based world order. The EU has never recognized the annexation of East Jerusalem. The EU and its member states do not recognize any other changes to the 1967 borders than the changes that the parties have agreed upon.
Within the framework of the EU's global MR sanctions regime, the government continues to push for proposals for additional sanctions listings against extremist settlers and for sanctions to be imposed against extremist Israeli ministers who actively oppose a two-state solution. The very serious developments on the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, underscore the need for this.
Johan Büser (S)
Madam Speaker! The situation in the Middle East continues to be very serious. The dramatic developments of the last few days – with large-scale war-like events in the region in the wake of the bombings by the USA and Israel in Iran – show how the region is now being rapidly thrown into further destabilization. When conflicts are escalated on several fronts, international law and human rights are tested, and when international law is tested, we must always be consistent. It is against that background that we must continue to speak about what is happening on the West Bank in Palestine.
The Palestinian village of Umm al-Khair in Masafer Yatta faces an acute threat of extensive demolitions and forced displacement. For many years, access to water, electricity, and infrastructure has been systematically restricted. It is a methodical policy to make it impossible for people to remain.
I have personally visited the site where the human rights activist Awdah Hathaleen was murdered in July 2025. I have met his family members. I have stood on the spot where he was shot.
The extremist settler – or what we more correctly should call a real terrorist – who is suspected of the murder continues to go free despite evidence. This is not an isolated incident. It is part of a pattern of violence, threats, and systematic oppression.
Settler terrorists act in practice with military powers. They operate in close cooperation with the Israeli state's security structures. Reports show that less than 1 percent of reports against soldiers in the West Bank lead to prosecution. Impunity is almost total.
It is therefore factually incorrect that we sometimes only speak of individual extremist settlers. It is a state-sanctioned reality where violence against civilians is tolerated and, in practice, protected.
Madam Speaker! The International Court of Justice established in its advisory opinion that Israel's settlement policy violates international law, and the court also clarified that states have an obligation not to recognize, not to assist, and not to participate in the illegal situation. States were also urged to take measures. This is also a legal obligation for Sweden.
What has actually happened in practice? In September 2025, the government wrote that it had asked the EU to promptly present concrete proposals to increase the pressure on Israel. In February 2026, it was repeated in a joint statement that concrete measures would be taken. At the same time, we know that central EU decisions are being blocked. The government nevertheless continues to primarily refer to EU processes that we know risk leading to nothing.
At the same time, we in the Committee on Foreign Affairs received word from the Cabinet Secretary that Sweden no longer supports that the EU should pause the trade agreement between Sweden and Israel. It is an agreement that also contains a clear clause on respect for human rights. The EU has already used this clause against at least 15 other countries with significantly weaker violations of international law as a basis. In this situation, where we see continued illegal occupation, systematic settlement expansion, and forced displacements, Sweden is therefore shifting its position.
I therefore want to ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs, so that this is also clearly stated in this chamber: Has the government really shifted its position on the question of suspending and pausing the trade and association agreement with Israel? If so – why? What is the international law justification for not using the human rights clause in this case?
Linnéa Wickman (S)
Madam Speaker! "The Palestinian state is being erased – not with slogans, but with actions."
That is what Israel's Finance Minister Smotrich said when new illegal settlements were approved in the occupied West Bank. These are decisions that in practice split the West Bank in two. There is no doubt about the purpose, rather the Israeli government is clear: the settlement policy shall bury the possibility of creating a Palestinian state.
We must take Smotrich at his word, because if it is actions that change reality, it also concerns us. It concerns all governments that claim to stand behind the two-state solution, and it concerns all governments that claim to uphold international law. It also concerns Sweden.
Let us be honest. Israel's leadership, especially the genocide-accused Prime Minister Netanyahu, who is the subject of an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court, will not change course because of yet another statement. Words are not enough in this situation.
If there is anything that has defined the Swedish government's line, it is precisely the lack of action. In some parts, it even concerns active decisions that have complicated the situation on the ground. When the question of continuing to freeze the EU's trade agreement with Israel is raised, the government seems to take the first available opportunity to open up for favorable trade again. I look forward to hearing the answer to Johan Büsers' questions in this area.
When it comes to the UN agency UNRWA, every single krona has been withdrawn despite other humanitarian actors having been very clear that UNRWA cannot be replaced. The organization maintains support for Palestinian refugees in Gaza, the West Bank, and in Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. Nevertheless, Sweden, together with the Trump administration in the USA, are the only former donors who have not resumed support. At the same time, Israel has banned the organization from operating and demolished its premises in East Jerusalem, which is an unparalleled attack on the UN.
The government has also removed the Swedish support for the ecumenical accompaniment program – the international presence that provides concrete protection for Palestinian civilians. Swedes have, for many years, ensured that children can safely get to school through military checkpoints, enabled farmers to harvest their land, and documented human rights abuses.
Last year, at least 1,800 settler attacks were carried out. The violence is increasing because it can occur with impunity. Churches and Christian villages are now warning that the Christian presence in the area is threatened. Do the words in the foreign policy declaration regarding freedom of religion and belief also apply to Christian Palestinians?
I have personally met the Nassar family outside Bethlehem and also received them here in the Riksdag. They are a Christian Palestinian family who have owned their farm and their land for over a hundred years, but who are forced to go through absurd legal processes while violent settlers harass them. They say that the international presence through companions is their only remaining protection.
Madam Speaker! It is good that the government says it supports more sanctions against violent settlers and ministers, but it is not enough. Why is the government pursuing such a timid policy in areas where Sweden can decide to act alone? This applies to both arms exports, the protection of the Palestinian civilian population, support for UNRWA, and receiving Palestinian children from Gaza for care.
If Smotrich is right about one thing, it is that it is action that decides the future.
Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Madam Speaker! The situation on Västbanken continues to deteriorate. In recent times, the illegal settlements on Västbanken and the completely unacceptable settler violence have increased at a record pace. It must, naturally, be broken and stopped.
The Government condemns the Israeli security cabinet's decision to change the legal and administrative frameworks for land acquisition and authority exercise in the West Bank. All measures aimed at permanently changing sovereignty over an occupied territory constitute annexation, regardless of how the measure is named. The decisions also complicate a future two-state solution and damage the ongoing peace efforts, which is the last thing we need.
Due to the negative development, I wrote together with 18 other foreign ministers on February 23 in a joint statement strongly condemning Israel's latest decisions. We urge Israel to immediately revoke the decisions. The government has, as is known, long been driving within the EU for the introduction of sanctions against extremist settlers and extremist Israeli ministers who actively oppose a two-state solution.
Linnéa Wickman was present regarding the decisions that Sweden can make alone, including the issue of arms exports. I believe that Linnéa Wickman is well aware that the government has for a long time held a very restrictive view on arms exports to Israel. Since the attacks on October 7, we have not granted any new export licenses. The only things actually being exported are follow-up deliveries of items that, at the time the agreements were entered into, were not considered war materiel.
When it comes to the question of the trade part of the association agreement, I have answered it many times in the EU Committee, so the information is in the committee's minutes. It was a question that was pushed forward primarily to push for humanitarian access to Gaza in a situation where there were completely appalling circumstances. It is still far too little humanitarian aid that is coming into Gaza, and we have now seen that the border crossings have been stopped again as a result of the events of the last few days. But supplies are still getting into Gaza nonetheless. We will continue to press on there.
However, one must be well aware that it was only a few countries in the EU that pushed for the proposal when we presented it. There were no possibilities of getting support for it then, and I would assess the possibilities of getting support for it now as significantly smaller even compared to then.
What we do, however, is to push for further sanction listings of extremist settlers on the West Bank, which is what the interpellation is about, and of ministers who are pushing in that direction. There is also no support for this in the EU, but the government will continue to push the issue.
Johan Büser (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs for the answer, as it was clear regarding the trade agreement.
The government is therefore continuing to trade with Israel, and one chooses to turn a blind eye. Here we are talking about a brutal occupying power, but the government ignores that clause on human rights which exists and which has been used and activated on previous occasions when it has concerned lesser abuses and oppression in 15 other states. But the Swedish government ignores it.
We can also observe that Sweden's current Foreign Minister is doing what many other leaders in the EU and in the West are doing: One condemns the obvious violations of human rights in the West Bank and in Palestine with words of duty. At the same time, it is obvious that there is a lack of concrete action to truly put pressure on Israel. Trade relations continue. We have a war materiel export to Israel that continues. National trade bans against settlement products are not being introduced. Those are the messages we have.
Like decades ago, the settlement expansion is allowed to continue with terror and legislative changes that for West Bank bring it closer and closer to a permanent annexation. The Western world condemns as a duty, just as the Swedish government. Concern is expressed and statements are written, but no measures that put real pressure on Israel's government are carried out – even though Sweden, according to the international courts, has a legal obligation to actually exert pressure.
I ask again: How does the government ensure, concretely, not rhetorically, that Sweden does not contribute to the illegal situation on the West Bank?
And yes, I want to bring up the trade agreement again. It is, after all, no small matter. It is the most concrete leverage mechanism that the EU has towards Israel. If the government has chosen to no longer support a pause of the agreement, which we have received as an answer, it is a political course change. It is unclearly justified. Reference is made to Gaza and that humanitarian access is not being allowed. But the bloody occupation of the West Bank continues. Here, human rights are being violated. Yet, we continue the trade.
Why should Sweden continue with unconditional trade relations when the ICJ explicitly urges states to take measures to prevent trade and investment ties that maintain the situation, which is illegal under international law?
It is also not enough that one, as the Foreign Minister says, pursues sanctions against individual individuals, whether they are settlers-terrorists or far-right ministers. This is a development that we have seen over time, even when the most far-right, for example Smotrich, were not part of the government. This has been ongoing for a long time.
I would like to point out to the Minister for Foreign Affairs that clearer measures against the Israeli occupation power are needed. Otherwise, we in the West will go down in history as collectively responsible for allowing Israel to continue occupying, demolishing people's homes, and suppressing human rights. It is both our political task and our moral duty to put a stop to the madness that is occurring on the West Bank.
Linnéa Wickman (S)
Madam Speaker! I intended to continue on the track of what Sweden itself can do. We know that many EU countries block the measures we want to see when it concerns, for example, extremist settlers.
If the government is serious about the settlements being illegal under international law, it must have consequences. It is prohibited under international law to exploit occupied land for economic gain. Nevertheless, goods produced in illegal Israeli settlements are sold today on both the European and the Swedish market. These are goods that directly contribute to financing a policy aimed at making impossible the two-state solution that Sweden supports.
It is not enough to say that this is an EU competence. Here, Sweden can act independently. Other countries have shown that national legislation can be used to prevent trade with goods from illegal settlements.
My final question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs in this debate is therefore: Is the government prepared to, as we Social Democrats have proposed, produce national legislation that prohibits the import of goods produced in illegal settlements? Or does the government continue to accept that Swedish consumers involuntarily contribute to upholding violations of international law?
If the settlers are illegal, we cannot simultaneously accept that their products are treated as any other commercial goods. Words about international law must be followed by consequence, especially when we live in a time where the rules-based world order is under attack – the order that is so important for us in Sweden and our own security.
Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Madam Speaker! Now it has become terribly messy here.
Both Johan Büser and Linnéa Wickman are mixing things up. The EU has for a long time pursued a clear policy of differentiation, which means distinguishing between Israel within the internationally recognized borders of 1967 and the occupied territories, both in its programs and activities as well as in trade with Israel.
The association agreement between the EU and Israel therefore does not include trade with illegal settlements. That is not what it sounds like when one listens to Johan Büser and Linnéa Wickman, of whom the latter said that the goods were treated equally.
According to EU rules, goods that require country-of-origin labeling and are manufactured in occupied territory may not be labeled as goods from Israel when they are imported into the EU. This means, for example, that these goods do not enjoy the same customs benefits as goods from Israel and that the consumer can clearly see where the goods come from. Sweden naturally stands behind this policy and behind the International Court of Justice, which has established that Israel's occupation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza is illegal.
Israel has an obligation to ensure that all exercise of power in occupied territory is in accordance with international law, which includes international humanitarian law, that human rights are respected, and that deaths are investigated and accountability is ensured.
The government also supports an initiative to ensure that the EU, in its trade with Israel, makes sufficient distinction between Israeli and occupied Palestinian territories to live up to the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion. We note that the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion from July 2024 agrees in decisive parts with the EU's policy.
What is the government doing, asks Johan Büser. We are pushing for change. We are very clear that we distance ourselves from the settlement policy. We view with great seriousness how the speed of this is increasing and that it is becoming increasingly brutal. Just as I said earlier, we are also pushing for the sanction-listing of additional extremist settlers but also of extremist ministers who push for the settlements and hinder a two-state solution. These would be highly effective measures. Unfortunately, we do not have support for them in the EU, at least not yet, but we will continue to push for this.
Johan Büser (S)
Madam Speaker! This debate has shown that it ultimately comes down to consequences or not for an illegal occupation power. In this case, we are talking about Israel.
We see that it is still possible to trade with goods from occupied territory. One example is that we could see KD's group leader in the Riksdag post a picture on Facebook with a bottle of wine from occupied territory and write: Finally Friday! Another example is that we were over a hundred members who signed a petition and demanded that the Foreign Minister take the initiative to truly stop the trade with goods from occupied territory. If any such initiatives have been taken, we have not heard anything from the Foreign Minister, even though this can be done at the national level.
The Foreign Minister also misses that the settlers and terrorists who operate on the West Bank and attack the Palestinian population there are, in practice, supported by the state of Israel. It is here that I refer to the human rights clause and say that the trade agreement with Israel must be paused.
While we rightly exert hard economic and political pressure on other states, we are not doing so on Israel. When it comes to the West Bank and Palestine, the government content itself with condemnation. That the government now chooses to no longer support a pause of the trade agreement is a political choice, and it is distressing.
The Swedish government must bear that responsibility and must explain why, but I would like to see the government use the tools we have to really put pressure on Israel's government, which is in line with the International Court of Justice's ruling.
Madam Speaker! Here is a clear dividing line in Swedish foreign policy. A vote for the Social Democrats this autumn is also a vote for an active Swedish foreign policy where we stand up for democracy, human rights, and the equal value of all people.
Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Madam Speaker! The Israeli settlement policy cannot be justified. The negative development in the West Bank must come to an end, and concrete steps towards a negotiated two-state solution must be taken. International law must be respected, and the two-state solution must be safeguarded.
Sweden and the EU, as well as the international community at large, adhere to a clear international law-based policy as the basis for continued efforts in relation to both parties.
Israelis and Palestinians have the same right to live in peace and security and to enjoy human rights. This is an important issue that the government will continue to engage in together with the EU, the UN and regional representatives.
When it comes to the illegal settlement policy, we are generally in agreement. But this year there is an election, and then there will be an election speech. And we also heard that at the end.
The Social Democrats are not interested in acknowledging that there is a broad consensus on the issues. They actually want to whip up the Middle East's conflicts on Swedish streets and squares. One might do so because one judges that it benefits one's own party in the election, but one really does not do so if one thinks of Sweden's best interest – and that is my task.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.