The decades of Israeli military operations have left deep scars on the Palestinian West Bank. Fences cut through the landscape. Roadblocks isolate villages. And interspersed with it all are oases of fancy neighborhoods, surrounded by high security fences, linked to Israel by wide roads that the Palestinians are not allowed to use. In the nearly 60 years of occupation, around 700,000 Israelis have settled in the settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, according to the UN. But this summer, the UN court ICJ made it resoundingly clear: the occupation and the settlements are illegal. Other countries are obliged not to contribute to the continuation of the offences. SV believes that Norwegian law must now be changed. But there is little appetite for that in the Storting. Demands separation between Israel and the settlements The ICJ’s statement emphasizes that other countries have more obligations when it comes to Israel and the occupation. Among other things, they must: Distinguish between the state of Israel and occupied territory Do not provide support that contributes to the continuation of the situation Ensure that Israel complies with international humanitarian law An Israeli military bulldozer drives through destroyed streets in Nur Shams, a permanent refugee camp in the northeast of the West Bank that was established on The 50s. Photo: ZAIN JAAFAR / AFP SV demands that Norway must now introduce a ban on trade with companies that support the settlements. They also demand a review of the EFTA free trade agreement with Israel, and stricter rules for public procurement that reject companies linked to violations of international law. They also want the Oil Fund to sell out of companies involved in the occupation. – We must end our contributions to Israel’s war crimes and occupation, says Swedish parliamentary representative Ingrid Fiskaa to news. Storting representative Ingrid Fiskaa (SV) believes Norwegian law must be tightened. Photo: Ole Berg-Rusten / NTB – This does not mean breaking all interaction with Israel, but distinguishing between Israel and illegally occupied areas. She believes that Norway is not doing enough today to comply with the International Court of Justice in accordance with the ICJ’s opinion. On Tuesday, the proposal was considered in the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee at the Storting. The majority with all parties except SV and Rødt voted against the proposal. – It is incredible that the parliamentary majority does not take the seriousness into account. Norway could be judged complicit in what will probably be declared genocide by the UN, says Fiskaa. – History will judge us harshly. – Can be considered co-responsible A month ago, the Government tightened the advice to Norwegian business with the wording: “Avoid trade that contributes to maintaining Israel’s occupation of Palestine”. But just one piece of advice won’t do, says Fiskaa. A ban is needed. – The official Norwegian line is that Norway should not contribute to these violations of international law. But we do it anyway, not least through the Oil Fund’s investments. SV believes this must be brought to light, she says further. – The UN Court is very clear that third countries such as Norway can be considered co-responsible for the violations of international law if this type of contribution is not ended. She receives support from several lawyers. Obligations for Norway Several things in the People’s Court lead to obligations for Norway as a third party, Kjell Brygfjeld tells news. He is a lawyer and chairman of the association Forsvar folkeretten. He points out three points: The Genocide Convention requires all countries to contribute to preventing genocide, i.e. the extermination of a human group, and to punish those responsible for it. The ICJ believes there is a danger that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. The illegal occupation and settlements, which the ICJ’s advisory opinion from this summer is about. The Geneva Conventions oblige countries to prevent violations of humanitarian law. Transferring one’s own population to an occupied area, as happens with the settlements, is an example of such a violation. Brygfjeld is also clear on one thing: even if the statements to the ICJ are only advisory, they express applicable international law: – There is no doubt that what is expressed there is binding on third countries such as Norway. Kjell Brygfjeld believes that Norway must tighten the rules in order to comply with the People’s Court. Photo: Martin Solhaug Standal / NTB What this means exactly is somewhat more unclear. Brygfjeld nevertheless believes that it is not appropriate for Norway to only offer advice to Norwegian companies. Demands “stronger lye” Brygfjeld also believes a ban is needed. Israeli settlers Around 700,000 Israeli settlers live in the Palestinian West Bank, according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA). Around 230,000 live in East Jerusalem. The rest live in the approximately 300 towns, villages and outposts scattered throughout the territory. The number of settlers shot up after Israel occupied the West Bank after the Six-Day War in 1967. Some are ideologically and religiously motivated. They believe that the Jews have a right to the Palestinian territories. Other settlers are more secular and live there because it brings economic benefits. In 2016, the UN Security Council decided that the settlements are in violation of international law. On 19 July, the International Court of Justice ruled that the Israeli settlers are operating illegally in the West Bank and must leave the area. Sources: Store norske lexikon Earlier this year, the organization Forsvar folkeretten itself submitted a draft bill. Among other things, this will prohibit trade with companies that contribute to the occupation, or that produce goods in illegally occupied areas. Almost 30 Norwegian interest organisations, among them Norwegian People’s Aid and the Trade Union Confederation, support the proposal. The government’s advice to Norwegian companies is also based on the Transparency Act, the lawyer points out. The Transparency Act is basically about vigilance when it comes to violations of human rights and working conditions, such as child labour. It does not apply to occupation and acts of war, although Brygfjeld believes that this must still be interpreted as part of the duty of care. – The law does not meet the requirements that the People’s Court and the ICJ’s statement require, he says. – It is not sufficient to put pressure on Israel to end the occupation. That is what is central to the ICJ. And then there must be a stronger approach than what follows from the Norwegian Transparency Act. Interested in foreign news? Listen to the foreign affairs editor’s podcast: Published 20.11.2024, at 15.24
ttn-69
– We must end our contributions to Israel’s war crimes – news Urix – Foreign news and documentaries
