The Israeli-Palestinian conflict

The European Union’s (EU) and Sweden’s position on the Israel-Palestine conflict is guiding the Council on Ethics analysis regarding the issue. In the analysis, the Council on Ethics has focused on companies that actively and consciously, by offering tailor-made products and services, contribute to permanent settlements or to maintaining the separation barrier in occupied territory. These companies are considered to be violating international law, which may form the basis for a recommendation on exclusion.

International conventions and positions

A number of resolutions in the UN General Assembly, international agreements as well as the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice have sought to provide guidance on how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be resolved.

The EU’s and Sweden’s position provides guidance

Guiding the Council on Ethics’ analysis of the Israel-Palestine conflict is the European Union’s and Sweden’s position on the issue. “The European Union and Sweden believe that the border negotiations must be based on the 1967 borders, as they looked before the Six-Day War (the so-called Green Line). Any changes to these limits must be agreed in direct negotiations between the parties. Both parties must refrain from measures that establish “new facts on the ground” and thus risk anticipating border negotiations. The EU and Sweden believe that Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including in East Jerusalem, are violating international law, constitute an obstacle to peace and threaten to make a two-state solution impossible. Israel is called upon to cease all settlement activity, including in East Jerusalem, and to dismantle all so-called outposts that have been added since March 2001. “

Actively and consciously offer tailored products and services

Companies that actively and consciously, by offering tailor-made products and services, contribute to permanent settlements or to maintaining the separation barrier in occupied territory, the Council on Ethics assesses violates international law, which may form the basis for a recommendation for exclusion.