Beyond Jens Stoltenberg, Secretary General of NATO, there exists a scarcity of Norwegian political figures with significant recognition in the Arab world. Espen Barth Eide stands as an exception. His articulations have garnered much attention, notably by Al Jazeera, where he voiced criticism against what he perceives as double standards in Western policies. It was shortly after Hamas’ offensive against Israel on October 7th that Espen Barth Eide assumed office as Foreign Minister in 2023. Prior to this role, he held positions such as Minister of Climate and Environment for a two-year tenure. Moreover, Eide previously served as both Foreign Minister and Minister of Defense in Jens Stoltenberg’s second government between 2011 and 2013.
In our forthcoming discussion, we delve into Norway’s distinctive approach, the challenges hindering a viable two-state solution, and other pertinent matters.
Our conversation with Eide transpired over 45 minutes in March within Norway, just a day after Mohammed Mustafa’s name emerged as the new Prime Minister of Palestine.
Since our dialogue, the casualties among Palestinians have tragically surged by several thousand, while Israel’s continued threats to breach Rafah, a region housing 1.5 million individuals in makeshift accommodations within a space akin to a neighborhood in Norway spanning 60 km², exacerbate an already dire situation. Additionally, tensions escalate in Germany, particularly following the authorities’ refusal to admit Palestinian doctor Ghassan Abu Sittah, slated to recount his first-hand experiences from Gaza amidst the conflict.
Meanwhile, the passing of prisoner Walid Abou Dakka within confinement after 38 years, deprived of proper medical attention for his cancer and denied the sight of his daughter, conceived through contraband means within prison walls, serves as a grim reminder of the human toll exacted by the conflict.
As we draft this piece on Saturday night, April 13th, Iranian drones and missiles indiscriminately strike targets across Israel in retaliation to Israel’s recent aggression against an Iranian consulate in Syria. Reports indicate the demise of Mohammad Reza Zahedi, a high-ranking general in the Revolutionary Guard, alongside several other Iranians in an Israeli airstrike on the Syrian capital, Damascus.
While our text has been translated into Arabic by April 29th, protests erupt daily across American university campuses. The arrest of Noëlle McAfee, head of the Philosophy Department at Emory University, marks a poignant moment in academia. These events transpire in the aftermath of President Biden’s endorsement of a $95 billion foreign aid package, earmarking $24 billion for Israel.
This allocation of resources compounds the cumulative economic and military assistance extended to Israel by the USA since its inception in 1948, amounting to a staggering $300 billion (adjusted for inflation). Such “generosity” cements Israel’s status as the foremost beneficiary of U.S. foreign aid in history.
The conflict in Gaza, which the International Court of Justice (ICJ) suggests may constitute genocide, unfolds physically within the tunnels beneath Gaza’s modest expanse, an area that makes up half the area of Oslo. However, the reverberations and ramifications of this conflict resound globally, reaching far beyond Gaza’s borders. Norway, despite its geographical distance from the epicenter of the conflict, is not immune to its impacts.
Norway’s Different Approach:
Many in the Arab world admire Norway’s engagement, but there is curiosity about why Norway has a different approach than other Western countries. Can you elaborate on this?
- Absolutely. First and foremost, it is important for Norway to practice principles of human rights and international law consistently, regardless of the conflict or country involved. There have been observations of double standards among some Western countries when it comes to reactions to conflicts, especially between Gaza and Israel. Therefore, Norway has wanted to be consistent and believes that it is important to stand up for the same principles regardless of the situation. Furthermore, Norway has invested a lot of time and resources in understanding the Middle East conflict. The Oslo Accords, signed over 30 years ago, marked the beginning of a change in Norway’s position from being strongly pro-Israel to having a more balanced approach. We believe that a solution to the conflict involves a Palestinian state and peace in the region. This development has given us a deeper understanding of the conflict and made it easier to react to serious events, like what is happening in Gaza now.
Historical Background: Norway’s Changed View of the Middle East:
You have mentioned that Norway has changed its position over time. Can you give us a historical overview of why Norway has changed its approach to the Palestine-Israel conflict?
- Of course. In the early years after the establishment of the state of Israel, there was great enthusiasm and sympathy for the country, partly driven by collective guilt after the Holocaust and fascination with early Israel as a socialist experiment. However, the view began to change after Norwegians served in UN forces in Lebanon in the late 1970s and early 1980s. This led to an increased understanding of the complex situation in the Middle East and increased sympathy for Palestinian rights. There was a conscious effort by several actors, including politicians and researchers, to promote a more balanced view of the conflict. This culminated in the Oslo Accords in 1993, where Norway played a central role. Since then, Norway has been involved in the peace process and has worked for a solution to the conflict. This has given us a more detailed picture of the situation and made us better equipped to respond to abuses, like what we see in Gaza now.
Norway’s Approach to Hamas:
What is Norway’s position regarding Hamas, especially considering the events in October?
- We strongly condemn the terrorist attack on the 7th of October. It was a heinous act of terrorism targeting civilians, which is never acceptable. Just as we condemn attacks on civilian Palestinians, we condemn attacks on civilian Israelis. Terrorism and attacks on civilian populations are never justified, and we strongly oppose them. However, Norway maintains a unique position by having direct communication with Hamas on diplomatic level[GS1] . Our approach is based on the principle of dialogue with all parties involved. If we are to achieve peace, we must interact with those we disagree with. It serves no purpose to only communicate with those who share our views.If we were to do that, we would be calling Sweden every morning to check in with them since they are the closest to us and ignoring everyone else. However, our ultimate goal is to see the future Palestinian state governed by the Palestinian Authority. We believe that the forces we have supported all along, such as Fatah and the PLO, should play a central role. We envision a broad Palestinian government, but not one controlled by Hamas. Yesterday, a new prime minister was appointed, and I have already congratulated him and look forward to working with him. As part of this reform effort, figures like Mohamed Mustafa are crucial. We are committed to the vision of a Palestinian state, but for it to become a reality, there must be capacity building. A state is more than just a place on the map; it requires institutions like a parliament, judiciary, government, police, and rule of law. Our goal is to strengthen the Palestinian Authority to become a fully functioning state entity, and that is a significant challenge.
The Dream of a Two-State Solution:
Is the idea of a two-state solution actually realistic, or is it just political rhetoric?
- It is understandable that you ask that question because the idea of a two-state solution seems difficult to achieve, and it is a challenging road to take. However, it is the case that all the alternatives are much worse. A one-state solution, where Israel controls everything, would be unfavorable for both Palestinians, who would not have their own state, and for Israel, which wants to maintain its Jewish and democratic character. A one-state solution would require Israel to either oppress non-Jewish citizens or lose its Jewish identity. Therefore, I still believe in the possibility of a two-state solution. Both Palestinians and Israeli Jews need a Palestinian state.
A Palestinian state that recognizes Israel’s right to exist securely, and Israel that recognizes Palestine’s right to exist securely. We have Palestinian refugees scattered across different countries, from Syria to Lebanon to Jordan and internally in Palestine. A Palestinian state will give these people the opportunity to return if they wish. But this question can only be resolved once a Palestinian state is established.
Back to the questions, I have faith in a Palestinian state, and this faith has actually been strengthened in light of the dramatic events in Gaza and the West Bank. What is happening there is deeply serious, with settler violence and many innocent lives lost.. This requires a political solution, and while a ceasefire is necessary to stop the bloodshed, it is only a first step. We must work for a political process that leads to the establishment of a viable Palestinian state, not just on paper, but in reality. That is what we must strive for, and everything we do should be aimed at this goal: to end the war, provide emergency aid, and promote the establishment of a Palestinian state.
For a two-state solution, a stable government is required. Neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis have it.
- The stability problem in the Israeli and Palestinian governments is a challenging issue that requires thorough measures. First and foremost, it is pointed out that both the Israeli and Palestinian governments have been unpopular among the population. Netanyahu has faced fierce demonstrations due to his attempts to undermine the rule of law in Israel. On the other hand, many Palestinians have been disappointed by the lack of progress in establishing a Palestinian state, which has undermined trust in the Palestinian Authority. To address this problem, reform of the Palestinian Authority is proposed to make it more effective and credible. This involves cleaning up internal corruption and bringing in new forces into the government. This will help restore trust among Palestinians and enable better competition with more radical forces for future support.
Netanyahu, Hamas, and Settlers:
Who is stopping the two-state solution?
- Firstly, the ever-increasing illegal settlement activity in the West Bank is one of the main challenges. This makes it increasingly difficult to envision the establishment of a physical Palestinian state. To solve this, it is emphasized that measures such as dismantling settlements or implementing land swaps must be taken to address these problems. Furthermore, several actors contributing to the problems are pointed out, including Netanyahu and Hamas. Netanyahu has been reluctant to advance talks on a Palestinian state, while Hamas has undermined Palestinian unity. It is also noted that Netanyahu seemingly has been positive towards Hamas’ strengthening, as this undermines the belief in a unified Palestinian state.
Gaza vs. Ukraine:
How do you see the differences between the situations in Gaza and Ukraine?
- The situations in Gaza and Ukraine have different origins. In Ukraine, the country was invaded by Russia without any provocation from Ukraine’s side, making Russia the aggressor and Ukraine the victim. On the other hand, Israel was attacked by Hamas on October 7, and although there is a long history behind the conflict in the Middle East, it was this specific attack that triggered the conflict. Regarding the consequences of the conflicts, it is important to look at how the wars are fought. The Geneva Conventions establish important principles of warfare, including the protection of civilians and the distinction between military targets and civilian targets. Both Israel and Russia have been criticized for violating these principles in their warfare. This has led to weakened support for the West’s view on Ukraine, as it is perceived as double standards when the principles are not consistently practiced. This has provided room for Russia to gain more support, especially among countries in the Global South. Finally, although there are differences between the situations in Gaza and Ukraine, it is important fro the West to adhere to the principles of warfare and to practice them consistently to preserve the credibility and legitimacy of international actions and resolutions.
Pressure on Norway:
Is there pressure on Norway to change its position, especially regarding continued support for UNRWA?
- Yes, there is definitely pressure on Norway, especially from Israel, to change our position regarding support for UNRWA. However, we stand firm in our decision to maintain support for UNRWA. We have been clear that it was wrong to cut the support, and we will continue to support UNRWA. At the same time, we have urged UNRWA to clarify any irregularities and to punish any violations of the law. Pressure on Norway also comes from other countries, but we resist it and believe that our position is correct. We have also urged other countries, to resume support for UNRWA, I am very pleased that more countries now returning with support. We are convinced that our decision in this matter is right, and we will continue to work to maintain support for UNRWA.
Freedom of Speech:
Are there discussions about the challenges of freedom of speech, especially considering the situation in the Middle East, between Norway and Germany?
- Yes, generally, Norway and Germany have a close partnership in many areas, but we disagree on the Middle East conflict. We have honest and respectful discussions on this topic. Although Germany has been more restrictive when it comes to criticism of Israel, we now see a movement towards our position. For example, German politicians, like Annalena Baerbock, have become clearer in their support for the two-state solution and the need for a ceasefire. We understand that criticism of Israel can be difficult in Germany, as it is sometimes conflated with antisemitism, but it is important to distinguish between legitimate criticism and antisemitism. We are pleased that interest in this issue is increasing in Norway, and I, as Foreign Minister, am committed to representing different viewpoints, including those coming from people with backgrounds from the Middle East, and conveying these viewpoints internationally.