Middle East: Norway failed completely

Since the early 1990s, Norway has adorned itself with its central role as a peace broker to bring about peace between Israel and the Palestinians. There was optimism at the start – before most things have gone downhill. Now Norway gets slaughtered.

– Norway has spent lots and lots of money and worked hard – but everything has gone in the wrong direction. Norway’s plan a, plan b and c – the two-state solution – is dead, says Jørgen Jensehaugensenior researcher at the peace research institute Prio, and expert on the Israel-Palestine conflict, to Dagbladet.

Lacks critical thinking

Once again, the Israel-Palestine conflict has topped the news with more violence, tragedy and death. At the same time, a new survey shows that Israelis’ and Palestinians’ support for what Norway is working for, the two-state solution, has never been lower. And as if that’s not enough:

– Peace in the region has never been further away, says Dahlia Scheindlin, when the gloomy figures were presented, according to Ha’aretz.

– Mediating peace in the Middle East and leading the donor country group for Palestine, AHLC, is Norway’s major international trademark. Then it is painful to admit that what you have been doing for 30 years has not led to success, says Jensehaugen, who writes about the topic in International politics:

“Norway was a very well-positioned witness to the death of the two-state solution. By ensuring continued aid to the Palestinians, Norway contributed to the end of this political solution being as painless as possible”.

And elaborates to Dagbladet:

– Norway has had a reluctance to think critically. They have only had one plan, the two-state solution. It might have worked when there were 200,000, 300,000 or 400,000 settlers in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem. But not today, says Jensehaugen.

– No yardstick

Ine Eriksen Søreide (H) was Norway’s foreign minister in the period 2017 to 2021. She does not agree with the criticism:

– That Jensehaugen wants a different policy – where Norway departs from a balanced line and more clearly supports one side, is a political attitude, which he is of course free to express. It was not the government’s policy and should not be a yardstick for assessing it either, writes Eriksen Søreide to Dagbladet.

Read her full response at the bottom of the story.

The current foreign minister, Anniken Huitfeldt (Ap), “welcomes a debate on Norwegian engagement in the Middle East”.

– And I share some of Jensehaugen’s views. After thirty years of commitment, and at a time when the two-state solution we want seems far away, it is natural that we look at how Norwegian commitment to peace can best be structured. At the same time, it is clear that the two-state solution is the only possibility for lasting peace, says Huitfeldt.

Tied to the mast

Senior researcher Jørgen Jensehaugen at Prio has followed the Israel-Palestine conflict closely over several decades.

– It is important to clarify that this is not Norway’s fault. But Norway has been a central actor and has never been willing to think about what is the red line for the two-state solution. The reality changed to a completely different one, he says, adding:

– Norway has been so tied to the mast that there has not been political space to see that the window is closing. The window has been closing for a few decades – and is now closed. What happens then? That debate has never been taken.

Jensehaugen believes Norway has done “everything to preserve the opportunities for conversation, the dialogue”.

– Indirectly, it has meant that Israel has been able to continue as they want. There has been no ultimatum or consequences when borders are crossed.

Trump saber

Many borders were crossed when Israel’s friend Donald Trump was president of the United States.

– They were not only surpassed, but totally defeated by the superpower that Norway sees as its most important partner when it comes to solving this, says Jensehaugen.

The USA has been the most important negotiator, while Norway has been responsible for raising money, as leader of the donor country group.

– Norway sees itself as a country that must rally the troops. Thus, they cannot be a driving force to push for changes, says Jensehaugen.

Want a boycott

– So what should Norway have done?

– Norway should have been a pioneering country when it comes to the direction of trade with Israel. Norway should end all trade with Israeli products that are produced in the occupied Palestinian territories – or with Israeli companies that work in the West Bank because they are involved in the occupation. This has been possible for almost ten years, with the 2334 resolution, but has not been implemented, says Jensehaugen.

He points out that Norway in its political rhetoric has been in favor of a two-state solution – at the same time that they have conducted trade that goes against exactly the same solution.

– Norway can and should implement such a differentiated trade policy. In addition, they can recognize the State of Palestine. It will have a symbolic effect. Israel has been allowed to dictate whether it should become a Palestinian state for years, and should be challenged, he says.

Jensehaugen also wants Norway to be clearer about the many human rights reports, which he emphasizes show Israel’s apartheid regime against Palestinians.

– That debate is pretended not to exist. It is quite problematic. One can also be clearer about the need for Palestinian unity, and demands for new elections. And if you get a new Palestinian election, you also have to accept the winner, says Jensehaugen.