Response to interpellation 2025/26:476 on humanitarian access to Gaza
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M believes that the government is doing everything possible and that Sweden is at the absolute forefront as one of the largest donors to Gaza 1 2. M argues that there is a proven system for humanitarian aid through UN agencies that should be used 3 and that Swedish support is already making a difference by providing water, food, and shelter 2. M emphasizes that the government is pushing the issue of unhindered access toward Israel and within the EU 3 1. M argues that it is not completely closed and that all available diplomatic tools are being used 1 2. M opposes the description that it should be completely closed 2. M focuses on what creates utility and believes that unilateral restrictions on products from settlements are rather a symbolic gesture than something that truly bites 4. M has good hopes for the Swedish-French initiative and hopes that the EU Commission will present a sharp proposal 4.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Bistånds- och utrikeshandelsministern Benjamin Dousa (M)
Mr. Speaker! Jacob Risberg has asked me what concrete measures I intend to take to ensure that Swedish and international aid reaches the civilian population in Gaza, and whether I intend to act towards Israel, bilaterally or through the EU, to secure rapid, safe, unimpeded, and sustained humanitarian access to Gaza.
Jacob Risberg has also asked me how the government follows up on ensuring that the Swedish aid funds are not only decided and paid out but also lead to actual help for civilians on the ground.
Finally, Jacob Risberg has asked me what conclusions I draw from the fact that a new Gaza flotilla has been stopped and how it affects the government's assessment of whether the regular humanitarian channels are functioning sufficiently well.
The Government views the humanitarian situation in Gaza very seriously. The civilian population's humanitarian needs are constantly enormous, and access barriers limit the possibility of delivering life-saving aid. Since the beginning of the war, the Government has pushed the issue of unimpeded, safe, and sustained humanitarian access in its own contacts with Israel, together with other EU countries and through its multilateral partners. The Government is very clear towards Israel that it is Israel's obligation under international law to ensure unimpeded humanitarian access.
The 800 million kronor that the government has allocated to Gaza and the region for 2025 and 2026 respectively are managed in close cooperation with a number of well-reputed partners and lead to concrete results. During the spring of 2025, for example, Swedish support to the UN's food program, World Food Programme, ensured that 235,000 people received flour for one month during a period when the needs were critical. In addition, Sweden has large core support to several of the central humanitarian actors.
Let me emphasize that there is an established, proven and principled system for humanitarian aid through UN agencies and humanitarian organizations. It is this system that should be used.
Jacob Risberg (MP)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Foreign Affairs Benjamin Dousa, for being here and answering my question just two days before Midsummer Eve!
The humanitarian situation in Gaza remains catastrophic. After more than two years of war, destruction, and repeated displacements, large parts of the civilian population live under undignified and dangerous conditions. The UN describes the needs as overwhelming. People are dependent on humanitarian aid for food, clean water, medical care, shelter, and basic security. At the same time, access for humanitarian actors continues to be limited, unpredictable, and subject to administrative, logistical, and security obstacles.
At its core, it is of course very positive that Sweden contributes humanitarian aid, and the government has repeatedly referred to extensive Swedish aid efforts directed towards Gaza and the region. Aid, however, does not save lives by deciding on it in Stockholm. Aid saves lives only when it reaches children, families, the sick, the elderly, and other civilians on the ground.
Even large aid amounts risk becoming insufficient if border crossings are kept closed or restricted, if necessary goods are classified as dual-use, if humanitarian organizations are denied access, or if distribution chains do not function. A couple of months ago, Israel again stopped a flotilla that was heading towards Gaza. The purpose of the flotilla was to draw attention to the blockade and attempt to bring humanitarian aid to the civilian population.
Regardless of how the government assesses individual flotilla initiatives, the incident illustrates the central question: Why is there still no safe, predictable, and sufficiently humanitarian access to Gaza through the regular channels?
Sweden needs to use its political and diplomatic influence much more actively. It is not just about being a donor, but it is also about pushing for humanitarian law to be respected, for civilians to be protected, and for aid to reach its destination without delay. Humanitarian aid must never be used as a bargaining chip or a means of pressure. It is an obligation under international law that the basic needs of the civilian population are met.
That is why I asked four questions to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I received a partial answer to one of them, but the other three remain.
The first question was: What concrete measures does the Minister intend to take to ensure that Swedish and international humanitarian aid reaches the civilian population in Gaza? The Minister for Development Cooperation referred to the fact that since the beginning of the war, the issue has been pursued, among other things within the EU and towards Israel, as well as to the fact that the government has been very clear towards Israel that it is Israel's obligation under international law to ensure unimpeded humanitarian access. Obviously, being clear towards Israel has not been enough – the border crossings are still closed.
The second question was: How does the Minister intend to act towards Israel, bilaterally and through the EU, to secure rapid, safe, unimpeded and sustained humanitarian access to Gaza? This question received the same answer as the first.
The third question was how the government followed up on how the Swedish aid funds are used and whether they actually reach civilians. We were told, which is pleasing, that 235,000 people have received flour for one month. I can state that this feels like a rather meager distribution for the 800 million that has been paid out.
The last question did not concern the Minister at all, namely what conclusions the Minister draws from the fact that a new Gaza flotilla has been stopped and how this affects the government's assessment of whether the regular humanitarian channels are functioning sufficiently well.
Bistånds- och utrikeshandelsministern Benjamin Dousa (M)
Mr. Speaker! The Swedish government has truly done all we can. This includes, among other things, financial support to the civilian population in Gaza. The latest figures I saw showed that in the entire world, it is only the United Arab Emirates that currently, as a country, bilaterally has donated more to Gaza than Sweden – not per capita, in relative terms, but in absolute terms. More countries should do as Sweden does and not just talk about their commitment to the civilian population in Gaza but actually open their wallets and in action show that they mean what they say.
The members of the committee also wonder exactly which diplomatic channels we have used. I have personally pushed for this towards Israeli government representatives. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has done the same, as has the Cabinet Secretary. It concerns both direct government representatives and the ambassador in Sweden, here in Stockholm. We have done it through the EU.
I am very well aware that this interpellation debate is about Gaza, so I am not saying this to mix up the cards – but just so the member understands: We have long pushed for sanctions against extreme ministers, against settler organizations, and against violent settlers in the West Bank. Together with France, we have now taken an initiative to limit trade with illegal settlements in the West Bank, for example.
My point is that Sweden is at the absolute forefront. The problem is that it is primarily in the EU where the real tools are, and it has been difficult to get this through so far. A few weeks ago, we got through certain sanctions because Hungary changed its position on the issue. It has not been easy, but we are doing everything we can.
The member may please be a little more concrete. Exactly what is it that the member is requesting, which we are not doing at the moment? All the tools that are in the toolbox – that is to say, putting in a lot of money and using all the diplomatic channels that are available to us – we are using right now. The member may therefore please be a little more concrete.
I completely agree with Risberg that much more support is needed – humanitarian aid deliveries and commercial trucks. I follow, in principle, every week the number of trucks that enter Gaza. It is obvious that Israel's government during certain weeks or even entire months has not followed its part of the agreement and let in enough aid, as they have actually promised.
I have just seen with my own eyes what Risberg also points out, for example how different products can be classified as dual-use. I am not a military expert, but I find it difficult to see how, for example, schoolbooks could be used in active combat. It is also about how regulations can be changed not just from day to day but almost from half-hour to half-hour. New classifications are introduced regarding the height of trucks, for example, which means that hundreds of trucks must be repacked with only a few half-hours' notice.
It is therefore obvious that it is not always a fair game. This means that the severely distressed population on the other side of the border may receive delayed deliveries and, in the worst case, no deliveries at all.
I shall mention a light in this dark tunnel – an example of that we have actually made a difference. Through the Ikeakopplied social enterprise Better Shelter, which produces shelters that are of better quality than classic tents and more resemble homes, we actually managed to secure Swedish support, through our diplomatic channels and with the help of other countries. It concerns a Swedish-funded, Swedish company that is helping the civilian population in Gaza right now.
Jacob Risberg (MP)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Minister!
There are actually things in the toolbox that I do not think have been fully utilized. I will return to them shortly.
In the Minister's opening response, he was very clear that the international law obligation to ensure unimpeded humanitarian access lies with Israel, and so it definitely is. One absolutely must not arbitrarily deny access for humanitarian aid when a population suffers as it does in Gaza.
But if a state nevertheless denies this access, something called responsibility to protect is activated, i.e., the duty to protect. That duty falls on all other individual states, including Sweden. Then one cannot simply say: Yes, but we must be in agreement within the EU. The EU does not have that duty. It is we as individual states who have the duty to participate and protect.
What does this obligation to protect mean then? What can be done, other than trying to talk to or put pressure on Israel in different ways? Yes, one can use different types of appropriate measures, for example, different types of coercive measures.
Now some sanctions have been put in place, and efforts are being made to obtain sanctions also against Israeli ministers. But the sanctions are obviously primarily linked to what is happening in the West Bank. It is very easy to imagine that one threatens with sanctions against the entire Israeli government, given that they still do not let in aid into Gaza.
One can initiate international prosecution. One can go to the courts and say that this is not sufficient – we want to pursue a process against Israel's government, because they are not living up to their international legal obligations. Has Sweden done that? Has anyone gone to any of the courts at all and raised this issue? Or has one stood behind someone else who has tried to pursue that question? I do not believe so.
One can also try to push the issue within the UN, because in extreme cases, military intervention may ultimately be required to get humanitarian aid in.
It is this, this entire principle it is based on – that there should be different coercive measures that do not only involve talking or trying to exert oral pressure. Start with economic pressure! If that does not work, try with international lawsuits!
And finally: Has Sweden at all taken any kind of initiative regarding this issue within, for example, the UN, which still has the muscles required to threaten, for example, military interventions if Israel does not immediately let in humanitarian aid?
This population has suffered since October 7. It has been closed since October 7. They have not opened since they agreed on a so-called ceasefire in October last year. Instead, closer to a thousand people, of whom very many are children, have been killed in this conflict. Help still does not get in – then it is not enough.
I am still very proud that Sweden is one of the largest donors – great! But what does it help if the trucks, and our tax money, are standing outside at the border and not getting in? Then it is not enough to call up your Israeli colleague and say: Listen, you must open the border. We have tried that for almost three years now. It doesn't help; they do not open the borders.
There are other means to resort to. Which of these measures has the government used?
Bistånds- och utrikeshandelsministern Benjamin Dousa (M)
Mr. Speaker! First and foremost, I turn to Member Risberg's description that it should be closed. I would have agreed if the description had been that it is not sufficiently open. It needs to be open for both humanitarian aid deliveries and commercial trucks. But that it should be totally closed is simply not correct. We know that Swedish-funded aid deliveries achieve results and create conditions for human dignity inside Gaza.
For example, our support for UNICEF's important work contributed to 1.7 million people gaining access to clean water and 86,000 malnourished children being treated. UNFPA's work resulted in 700,000 people gaining access to services within sexual and reproductive health and rights. The Swedish support to the International Committee of the Red Cross contributed, among other things, to the organization's work with health and medical care. Through UNDP, we have contributed to the purchase and construction of hundreds of temporary emergency shelters.
Sweden's support is therefore making a difference. We would like even more of that support to come in, and that is why we use the tools that are available. We do this both bilaterally, within the EU, and for that part, within the UN.
I also want to point out that the support we gave to the UN's World Food Programme, WFP, meant that 208,000 people received cash assistance to buy, for example, necessary food.
We are doing everything we can so that the severely distressed civilian population in Gaza can be able to have just human dignity and live a life in freedom and satisfy the most basic needs.
Israel's government does not let in enough trucks, but I turn away from the description that it should be completely closed. There have been periods when it has been virtually completely closed. In those cases, we have pointed it out as well.
As has been said, there are few countries in the entire EU that do more than we, whether it is about donating money or about using and standing behind the initiatives that exist right now. But the most powerful tools – the tools that could actually bite – are primarily at the European level.
Jacob Risberg (MP)
Mr. Speaker! I never said "totally closed." I said "closed." When one wants to go to the bank on a Monday afternoon, it is closed after three o'clock. Then one has to try to adapt. But here we cannot influence when our trucks arrive. We cannot decide when we can drive in with trucks. This the Minister for Foreign Affairs must still agree with. Because it is entirely up to Israel, and it is precisely this that violates the fundamental principles regarding humanitarian aid.
They may not arbitrarily deny access, and that is exactly what they are doing. Even if they open for 100 trucks one day and then have closed the next day, it is to arbitrarily deny access. In that case, they are violating their international law obligations, and then we must step in.
It may well be that the Minister thinks there are few countries in the EU that do more than we do. There are several countries in the EU that have taken their own initiatives where the Swedish government has said it would be more efficient to do it through the EU, for example when it concerns stopping trade with settlements or introducing different types of visa requirements and so on. There are countries that have taken those steps without waiting for the EU. There is, therefore, much more to be done.
But let me return to the question: What do we do when words are not enough? We must nevertheless agree that not all the help will come in the extent that would be needed. Has the government gone to any court and tried to bring a prosecution regarding this? Has one tried to initiate actions within the UN to potentially, in the worst case, be able to resort to military means? It is up to us to do so. One cannot constantly blame that the EU is not in agreement. It is up to us as a party in international law to be significantly more active here.
Bistånds- och utrikeshandelsministern Benjamin Dousa (M)
Mr. Speaker! Member Risberg and the government seem to agree on quite a lot, I can still state. We both have a great commitment to the civilian population in Gaza. We are both generous with money and think that it is important. We are both critical of how Israel's government has handled the issue of humanitarian access.
Regarding the question of, for example, products from illegal settlements, I have actually had several meetings with EU countries that are now moving to unilaterally introduce this type of restriction. Not even they can answer how it should be implemented and whether it will even work. As I interpret it, it is rather a symbolic gesture than something that will truly bite when it comes to reducing the amount of products. It will be quite simple to export to a country that does not have tariffs or sanctions or otherwise restricts trade, and from there, one can then export it to countries that have introduced this type of restriction. They themselves do not seem to be able to answer the question of whether this will be effective or not.
We focus on what actually creates utility and can make a difference in practice. The Swedish-French initiative is gaining increasing support. Countries that previously have been skeptical, hesitant, or have distanced themselves are now joining the Swedish-French initiative. I therefore have good hopes.
If this trend continues – unfortunately for bad reasons, as it is about Israel not doing enough to let in humanitarian aid – more and more EU countries will join the initiative. Hopefully, the European Commission will also present a sharp proposal that can be put to a vote if required.
Overall, we seem to be in agreement, even though we do not envision ourselves entering with Swedish soldiers against Israel.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.