תגית: UN

Norway is seen by many as one of the most hostile European countries toward Israel. But the government in Oslo is veering between demands that it toughen its line against Israel and its actions in Gaza – and the fact that Norway is a major arms exporter

Published in Haaretz: https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/2024-04-11/ty-article-magazine/.premium/israel-and-norway-a-schizophrenic-relationship/0000018e-c7a3-dc93-adce-eff3a37e0000

In recent months, some Israelis have declared Norway the European country most hostile to Israel. This theory is largely based on the policy of Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide, whose term began only a few days after the October 7 Hamas attacks. Barth Eide, a member of the Labour Party, is doing his second stint as foreign minister for the second time, having served in the role in 2012 and 2013. He has also briefly served as defense minister and climate and environment minister.

The list of Israeli grievances against him and his government is long. First came a report that Barth Eide's ministry had prevented King Harald V from sending a condolence letter to Israel after October 7 – because in Norway, the king isn't authorized to make declarations concerning "victims of a political conflict."

This was followed by a condemnation of Israel two weeks later at an international conference in Cairo. Norway's decision not to recognize Hamas as a terror organization also drew anger. In addition, Norway insisted on continuing to transfer money to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, the UN agency assisting Palestinian refugees, while several other countries halted their support in response to reports that some of its employees had been involved in the October 7 attacks.

Norway not only continued to transfer money but initiated a campaign to defend UNRWA in other countries. Meanwhile, Norway has been active in the lawsuit against Israel in the International Court of Justice over the occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which is separate from the South African suit accusing Israel of genocide.

"We are friends of Israel," says the foreign minister, clarifying his position in an interview. "We always have been and we will continue to be. Sometimes good friends need to give good advice, but we are in no way hostile to Israel. We have always tried to help Israel live in peace and security." When asked to explain why Norway is nevertheless seen by many in Israel as hostile, he says that despite the friendship, his country can disagree with the Israeli government.

"We condemned the attack by Hamas on October 7 and we recognize Israel's right to defend itself against terrorism," he says, "but we also said that, like any other country, Israel must obey the laws of war within the international humanitarian laws of the Geneva Convention. Our criticism was that some of the military tactics that Israel used, and the de facto partial blockade on the Gaza Strip that prevented food, electricity, and necessary means of life from the Gaza population, were very problematic. This is not hostility towards Israel; it's criticism towards certain elements of the government's policy."

Among the issues Barth Eide mentions are statements by Israeli cabinet ministers who "gave the impression, which is probably wrong, that Israel wants to expel the Palestinians from Gaza. There have been such statements in Israel and they are very problematic when they come from government ministers."

Although several countries stopped transferring funds to UNRWA, Norway continued to transfer funds and demanded that other countries do so too. Do you not believe the Israeli authorities who reported that UNRWA employees were involved in the October 7 attack, or do you think this is not a sufficient reason to stop funding the organization?

"Our decision is not based on a lack of trust in the Israeli claim. Although we haven't seen evidence, that's not the point, because it may indeed be true. It may be that amongst 13,000 employed in Gaza, there were some who were involved with Hamas and even in the terrorist attack. This is terrible, unacceptable and it requires an investigation, we said this to the UN Secretary-General Guterres and to [UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe] Lazzarini.

"But we did not agree that if this is true, all funding should be cut," he says. "This is not how to react to transgressions or crimes inside organizations. You don't close the organization, you look for the criminals. If someone in the Oslo police force is arrested on suspicion of murder, I will not shut down the police but arrest the suspect. We are happy to see that there are now countries that have changed their position on this – Australia, Denmark, Sweden, and Canada, for example, as well as the European Commission. It's not that we don't believe Israel, but we don't think that all Palestinians should be punished because of it."

Regarding UNRWA as a whole, Barth Eide does not accept claims that the organization is problematic and that aid for Palestinians should flow through other organizations instead. "A vast majority of the other international organizations operating in the region say that it's not possible to replace UNRWA in the short term," he says, "because they are the backbone for all humanitarian activities in Gaza, so all organizations are coordinating with them."

In November you declared, "We were clear in stating that Hamas should be seen as a terror organization." Is this, as opposed to the past, now Norway's official policy, including when it comes to enforcing the law, economic sanctions, etc.?

"The terrorist attack on October 7 was clearly a terrorist attack and it was carried out by Hamas, so in this context they carried out a very grave terrorist act. However, we have a standing position that maintains some kind of contact with all the relevant groups. This does not mean that we accept their goals or their policies, but we think that if we are trying to contribute to a cease-fire between the Israeli army and Hamas, someone has to talk to Hamas. This is not an endorsement of Hamas, but only an acknowledgment that they exist.

"The way to weaken Hamas is to develop an alternative path to a Palestinian statehood. People who contributed to the division of Palestinian society served Hamas and those who did not want progress. We do not want a Palestine under the control of Hamas, but a Palestine who recognizes Israel under the control of other Palestinians who recognize Israel and its right to life and security."

So are you in contact with Hamas?

"Yes, we are in contact with Hamas, as we are in contact with Hezbollah, with the Houthis, and everybody else in the neighborhood. And that is why we didn't impose the same sanctions that other countries imposed –but this should not be understood as endorsement of their goals and policies." Barth Eide adds, without specifying exactly to whom he is referring, that "There are people in the world who criticize us for this in public, but are actually happy that this is the case, because someone has to maintain these contacts".

What is your current position regarding the South African lawsuit in The Hague and its results?

"I commended the fact that Israel decided to respond to the lawsuit. We did not respond to the initiative itself, but given that the lawsuit exists, it's good that Israel responded, it's good that it recognizes the authority of the court and it's clearly its right to defend itself against the accusations. The court did not conclude that there is a genocide here, but that there are sufficient elements that may constitute a violation of the Convention on the Prevention of Genocide, and Israel should respond and inform the court what steps it is taking to comply with the limitations applicable to a country at war. It isn't illegal to go to war in self-defense, but there are laws on how to do it.

"There is of course another ICJ case dealing with the Israeli occupation. Unlike the genocide case, in the occupation case, we have actually intervened." Indeed, Norway was one of 50 countries that testified before the court on the matter in late February. "Norway clearly distances itself from Israeli settlers' displacement of and violence against Palestinians on occupied land," Barth Eide says. "The settlements are illegal according to international law… the injustice the Palestinians are being subjected to must stop."

Retail policy

Norway's policy toward Israel also has an economic aspect. Its Foreign Ministry recently issued a warning to Norwegian companies "not to engage in business cooperation or trade that serves to perpetuate the illegal Israeli settlements." Regarding this topic, Barth Eide was quoted in the statement as saying "Norway has long maintained that Israel's settlement policy in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is in violation of international law, including international humanitarian law and human rights, and undermines the prospects of achieving a future Palestinian state and a peaceful resolution of the conflict."

The statement said the recommendation to Norwegian companies was issued against the backdrop of swelling settlement expansion, as well as "increased settlement violence against the Palestinians."

The minister said in the statement that the "Norwegian business community has sought advisory guidelines from the Norwegian authorities. This recommendation makes it clear that Norwegian companies should be alert to the fact that engaging in any economic or financial activity in the illegal Israeli settlements could put them at risk of contributing to violations of international humanitarian law and human rights."

This policy has already had practical consequences. "A week ago, Norway's foreign minister sent an 'information letter' to the Norwegian Confederation of Business and made it clear that doing anything that would benefit organizations that contribute to the illegal occupation in Israel is not in keeping with Norwegian policy," says Leif Knutsen, the media coordinator for Norway's Jewish community. "He also sent this letter to Vinmonopolet, Norway's government-owned alcoholic beverage retailer monopoly. Vinmonopolet then immediately called for an emergency board meeting, which decided to take all wines from the West Bank and the Golan Heights off the shelves."

Knutsen says that this step may be illegal in the context of European Union or World Trade Organization rules, especially in the case of the Golan Heights. "It's a policy change that Barth Eide dictated from his own desk, not via the cabinet or the parliament, as foreign policy conducted via retail," says Knutsen. "One of the results of this is that in practice, Jews in Norway who want wine [that] is kosher for Pesach will find it hard to get hold of it."

Barth Eide clarifies that "Vinmonopolet can import other Israeli wines if it chooses to," and adds: "We have economic relations with Israel and we want to continue to maintain them. But we have been arguing for years that our economic relations with Israel should be with the Israel within the 1967 borders. This is not new. Now, we are strengthening our advice to Norwegian businesses – feel free to buy and sell in Israel, but not in what fuels the occupation, which I think everyone, except the Israeli government, recognizes is illegal.

"This is not a very radical policy," he says. "But [it exists] to be consistent with our own policy of not financially contributing to human rights violations and violations of international law. We do not go into the specifics, we give general advice. So it was the board of Vinmonopolet who made this decision."

In spite of all that, it seems that the Norwegian economy isn't paying a particularly high price for the government's moral stance. Trade relations with Israel haven't slowed dramatically, and the calls for a boycott of Israel are more symbolic than concrete.

According to Mette Johanne Follestad, president of the Norwegian-Israeli Chamber of Commerce, "For decades, Norway's main export to Israel [has been] fish. More than 80 percent of all imported salmon to Israel is from Norway. To a much smaller extent, Norway also exports metals and paper. Israel's main export to Norway is agricultural products – i.e., fruits and vegetables. Israel also exports to Norway technological products such as computer items. Those two sectors cover most of the Israeli imports to Norway."

She adds that despite political tensions, Norwegian fish exports to Israel have continued to grow in recent years. Exports from other industries have not increased for some time, however. "The political climate in Norway regarding Israel is not helpful for the promotion of business and especially for initiating new lines of trade. It seems that the anti-Israel sentiment has created a reluctance to develop new business relations with Israel.

"Even so, some trade continues to grow. In 2022-2023, Israeli imports to Norway increased from 1.649 billion kroner (570 million shekels) to 1.801 billion, reaching record figures in both years. Norwegian exports to Israel were also at a record level in 2022 at 2.644 billion krone. Unfortunately, Norwegian exports to Israel decreased to 2.313 billion kroner in 2023."

In addition to the recommendation of the Norwegian government to boycott Israeli products from the West Bank, Follestad also notes that universities in Norway are calling for an academic boycott against Israel, although the Norwegian government is against it. Knutsen adds that Norway has seen many calls for various types of boycotts against Israel. In Norwegian academia, for example, some universities have severed ties with academic institutions from Israel. One example is Oslo Metropolitan University, commonly known as OsloMet, which decided not to continue a student exchange program with the University of Haifa. "This is a case where the institution's board of directors made the decision," says Knutsen. "They claim that it's not a boycott but a decision not to continue a program, but this is a game of semantics."

Knutsen sees the decision as a clear violation of fundamental academic freedom that was meant to appease activists wishing to silence anyone disagreeing with them. According to reports, OsloMet is not alone, with the University of South-East Norway deciding to end its academic and research collaborations with the Hadassah College of Technology in Jerusalem over the war in Gaza.

The boycotting isn't limited to academia. Knutsen says there has been a flood of calls for boycotts of Israeli products in recent months. Some trade unions and local municipalities, including Oslo, have called for boycotts or announced them. "They're very careful to say that they're not boycotting Israel, they're only boycotting organizations and cooperation that contribute to the settlements, particularly in the West Bank," she says. "However, it's not always clear what exactly that means and what it is that they're not buying. It seems like virtue signaling for a domestic audience."

When it comes to big money, however, Norway is in no rush to cut off every investment that could somehow be connected to the occupation and the settlements. On this subject, it's interesting to consider Norway's Oil Fund, which invests the surplus revenue from the country's oil sector in what has become the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world. The fund, which holds about $1.5 trillion, has previously withdrawn investments in Israeli companies. However, according to various reports, it still has investments in some 70 Israeli companies totaling billions of dollars. Now it's examining whether to withdraw investments from companies connected to the occupation and settlements, mainly entities like Israeli banks and financial institutions.

"This is discussed widely here," says Barth Eide. "Our recommendations are also relevant to investments in the Oil Fund. The ethical committee of the fund is looking into the matter. It's complicated, because, for example, when there is ownership in a bank, the bank may have activities both in Israel and in the occupied territories, so it's complicated, it's a question of to what grade, and the government doesn't go into the details of every portfolio. The fund has a board of directors and it also has a wider management and an ethics committee. They are the ones who decide."

Sell and forget

In spite of the many steps aimed at pressuring Israel, there are voices in Norway arguing that the government isn't doing enough to oppose Israel and support the Palestinians. Pro-Palestinian organizations say the Norwegian arms industry, a large part of which is government-owned, has found ways of bypassing the prohibition against selling weapons to countries at war. Could Norway be trying to enjoy the best of both worlds, portraying itself as the enthusiastic defender of the Palestinians while avoiding missing out on the profits made from its relationship with Israel?

"There is a clear definition of what a Norwegian weapon is," says Barth Eide. "It's a weapon that is manufactured in Norway or at least the main component is manufactured in Norway. This is an international definition. In this sense, it's forbidden to export Norwegian weapons to countries that are at war like Israel and we have no reason to believe that there has been violation of this." However, the foreign minister clarifies that since Norway has a large arms industry, Norwegian companies also own companies abroad –and here, the government's control is more limited. The same is true of other countries.

"Besides, there are also joint projects in which we produce parts for weapons made by other countries," says Barth Eide. "For example, we manufacture some minor parts for F-35 aircraft. Norwegian laws do not apply here because it would simply create a situation where international defense cooperation would be impossible." Barth Eide says Norway doesn't sell weapons to Israel and that he has called on other countries to follow its example to ensure there is no indirect complicity in what potentially may constitute genocide.

However, some say that Norwegian companies, including at least one that is half-owned by the government, are bypassing this government policy. The online daily magazine Verdens Gang reported in November that Norwegian-produced components may be used in missiles that Israel is firing in Gaza. The publication reported that since Norway allows the exportation of weapons components to NATO countries like the U.S., the parts could be used to assemble weapons exported to Israel according to American regulations.

That's how, according to the newspaper, Chemring Nobel is one of the manufacturers of rocket fuel for Hellfire missiles, which the U.S. supplies to Israel for use in the war in Gaza. Reports that this company produces rocket fuel and explosives for missiles used by the Israel Defense Forces aren't new and have appeared in various Norwegian media outlets in the past.

In response to the Verdens Gang report, Chemring Nobel's CEO said he couldn't rule out the possibility that Norwegian components are included in the weapons systems used in Gaza, Ukraine, or other places. This is because several of Norway's allies permit the export of defense products to Israel, in contradiction with Norwegian export policy.

The Nordic Ammunition Company (aka Nammo), another Norwegian company, has also been accused of selling weapons to Israel. Ownership of Nammo is divided between the Norwegian government and a Finnish company named Patria, itself half-owned by a Norwegian company whose largest stockholder is the government. In December, the Norwegian public broadcaster reported that pro-Palestinian activists had blocked the entrance to the company's factory in Raufoss, saying that "Nammo's weapons are helping to kill Palestinians in Gaza." According to the demonstrators, M141 shoulder-fired missiles exported by Nammos' factory in Arizona to Israel are being used in Gaza. The company denied the claims, saying the weapons were sold to the U.S. military up until 10 years ago, which was the extent of its involvement.

In response to a request for comment, a Nammo spokesperson wrote: "We have also seen media reports about U.S.-made Nammo products in Israel. Given that sales of these products took place several years ago and were made to U.S. authorities, we're not in a position to confirm reports of later transfer from the US to Israel, nor are we privy to knowledge about which weapons or materiel the Israeli military uses."

Asked whether there is oversight over the use of the weapons parts the company exports to other countries (such as by means of an End-User Certificate), the spokesperson wrote: "Nammo is subject to export control laws in the countries where we have operations, including Norway, which does not permit exports of Norwegian-produced products to Israel. For export license requests to countries where exports from Norway are permitted, end-user documentation or certificates are normally part of the list of required documents."

Chemring Nobel declined to respond to a request for comment.

Mediation and boycott

"Trends in International Arms Transfers, 2023," the latest edition of the annual report by the respected independent watchdog Stockholm International Peace Research Institute provides context regarding Norway's arms industry. The think tank is dedicated to research into conflicts, armaments, arms control, and disarmament. Its publications are considered highly reliable sources on the global arms trade, although the institute acknowledges that complete information on deals in the field is hard to obtain. In the 2023 report, Norway is 19th on its list of the 25 largest exporters of major arms – all the more notable because of the country's small population of 5.5 million. According to the report, imports of major arms by European countries increased by 94 percent – nearly double – in 2014-18 and 2019-23.

More than half of European arms imports in 2019-23, 55 percent, were from the U.S., up from 35 percent in 2014-18. Arms imports to countries in Asia, Oceania, and the Middle East also increased significantly in 2019-23. The top arms importers in this period were India, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Ukraine, Pakistan, Japan, Egypt, Australia, South Korea, and China. Israel was 15th on the list. Almost 70 percent of its arms imports were from the United States – the world's top arms exporter, whose total arms exports rose 17 percent. Russia's exports, in contrast, fell 53 percent, losing its spot as the second-largest arms exporter to France and dropping to third place. The U.S., France, and Russia were followed by China, Germany, Italy, Britain, Spain, and Israel (in ninth place).

Countries in the Middle East accounted for 30 percent of arms imports in 2019-23. Saudi Arabia, the world's second-largest arms importer, received 8.4 percent of global arms imports during this period. With a global share of 7.6 percent, arms imports by Qatar increased 396 percent during that timeframe. The United States is the region's arms supplier, accounting for 52 percent of Middle East arms imports; following it are France (12 percent), Italy (10 percent,) and Germany (7.1 percent).

Norway shouldn't be on the list at all, since its regulations prohibit arms exports to countries in a state of war. Therefore, the countries leading the list of imports from Norwegian companies in this field are the United States, Ukraine, and Lithuania. After Russia's invasion of Ukraine and given Norway's special interest in helping to repel it, the Norwegian government passed a resolution allowing direct arms sales to Ukraine. Also, Norwegian law allows the provision of military aid to countries at war, as opposed to the sale of weapons for commercial purposes.

"The defense and weapons market in Norway is highly regulated," Nicholas Marsh, a senior researcher at the Oslo Peace Research Institute, says. "The Ministry of Foreign Affairs issues export permits and customs checks the products that cross the border. The trading partners in this area are mainly NATO countries and [other] developed and democratic countries, such as Australia. The main principle according to which export licenses are granted was already formulated in the late 1950s, in the declaration of the Norwegian Parliament according to which it is forbidden to sell weapons or ammunition to areas that are at war, under threat of war, or in civil war. Beyond that, Norway is also subject to the International Arms Trade Control Treaty and EU guidelines." Although Norway is not an EU member, it has accepted the EU's guidelines in this field.

"Norway's defense and weapons industry doesn't have a huge effect on the national economy. Obviously, it's much less important than oil and gas in terms of Norway's gross domestic product. However," Marsh adds, "Norway doesn't produce much. For example, unlike Sweden, we don't have a large high-tech industry, so in terms of production and employment, [the defense] sector is important. There are two major companies, Nammo and Kongsberg, both partly owned by the Norwegian government."

What about Norwegian companies with subsidiaries in other countries? Are they subject to Norwegian law, or to the laws of the countries in which they manufacture the arms?

"When it comes to subsidiaries, things get complicated. Hypothetically, if a Norwegian company buys a company abroad, Norwegian regulations don't apply to it. It only applies to products that leave Norway. However, Norwegian export regulations can be applied if a product that is manufactured in, say, the United States, uses parts that were made in Norway or even uses software or technical plans [that] are Norwegian intellectual property."

When Norway exports arms, is it considered standard to demand an end-user certificate?

"Like other countries, Norway also uses end-user certificates, but more important are the conditions of sale documents. This is how companies define, among other things, who they allow their products to be sold to. It is not only a matter of maintaining human rights, it is also a commercial matter. But in the case of NATO countries, Norway has repeatedly made it clear that it does not request end-user certificates. This is a political statement and it has been repeated over the years.

"Thus, since Norway can sell to France, the United States, and the United Kingdom, for example, and since it does not require an end-user certificate from these countries that export to countries like Saudi Arabia, the situation is that the government can claim that there are no weapons in countries at war that have 'Made in Norway' on them, but It's certainly possible that there are weapons that have Norwegian parts or are produced by subsidiaries of Norwegian companies. It should be remembered that the arms industry is partially owned by the government, which has both an economic and a political interest here, so there is a balance between principled considerations and practical consideration," Marsh says.

"This has characterized Norway for a long time," Marsh adds, summing up what he calls Norway's dualistic nature. "The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded here and there is political emphasis on peace talks, diplomatic efforts, solidarity, and humanitarian activity. But on the other hand, Norway has been a NATO member from the very beginning, and since World War II it has a strong military which is part of a military alliance that opposes Russia. As a small country, its interest is to promote peace, but it has never been a pacifist country."

When Barth Eide is asked about the future of Israel-Norway relations, he says that although there are ups and downs, his country still formally has a central role in the region because it's the chair of the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee, the body that coordinates international economic aid to the Palestinian Authority. Established in 1993, it has 16 members, led by Norway and sponsored by the United States and the European Union.

"After a cease-fire, this will again be the key body for discussing the coordination of donations to build the Palestinian Authority," Barth Eide says. "That is why we worked with the Israeli government to find a solution to the problem of the clearance revenues collected by Israel on behalf of the Palestinian Authority. This shows that we can still work with Israel and with Ramallah to solve problems." This is a reference to the temporary arrangement facilitated by Norway between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, in which Norway serves as an intermediary for the portion of tax and customs revenues that Israel has withheld since October 7.

In a broader context, Barth Eide still holds to the policy he held in the past. "I believe and have believed for many years that the best path to peace is an agreement with the Palestinians," he says, "not with Hamas, of course, but with the Palestinian Authority, with Fatah and the PLO. Israel will be more successful in its attempt to be both a state for Jews and a democratic state if it has a Palestinian state by its side. Everything we do on this issue is intended to end suffering but also to establish a Palestinian state that is run by a legitimate authority after an agreement. This is a goal that is good for both the Israelis and the Palestinians."

Follestad, the president of the Norwegian Israeli Chamber of Commerce, stresses that any boycott, including one only on Israeli products from the West Bank, would be primarily damaging to Norway's position as an honest broker. "Ever since the Oslo Accords were negotiated in our country, Norway has tried to be a mediator and bring the sides closer to peace," she says. "By boycotting Israeli products from the West Bank, which according to the Oslo Accords is still legally under Israeli jurisdiction, the Norwegian government, by not respecting the signed agreements, is itself violating the spirit of the Oslo Accords. Accordingly, Norway's opinion may no longer be respected by Israel, and Norway may become irrelevant as a mediator in the conflict."