Minister of Foreign Affairs Eide's statement to the Security Council: The Situation in the Middle East

Madam president.

Dear members of the Security Council.

I speak to you as a representative of the country that facilitated the Oslo Accords back in 1993. Norway has been committed to the cause of fostering good relations between Israel and Palestine, and we have been committed to prepare for the establishing of a Palestinian state.

We always wanted to recognise the State of Palestine. But, we envisaged- until recently - that the right moment of doing that, was at the end of a process of voluntary negotiations between the two sides.

When the Oslo Accords were agreed, the idea was to build the institutions of a Palestinian state, bottom up. That would begin with the practical elements of a state, while negotiations would continue, for the four clusters of outstanding final status issues that we all know too well. It was people like Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres and Yasser Arafat and their teams who negotiated this. In my view, they did so in good faith, with a clear indication that they genuinely wanted to achieve this goal. Which is why we believed, given the information we had available at the time, that the right thing to do, was to build the state bottom up so that these outstanding issues, like borders, security, refugees and the status of Jerusalem, could be settled at the end. And after this was settled, we believed that all countries of the United Nations would recognise the State of Palestine. Well, at some point, we realised that there was no real progress in these talks.

President,

I have been in and out of this job. I've had the opportunity, both now and previously, to chair the ad hoc liaison committee (AHLC) - the international donor group for Palestine. It has been ad hoc for 31 years, which is a somewhat stretched interpretation of ad hoc.

Yesterday, I convened a meeting of the AHLC. It was very constructive. Prime Minister of Palestine, Mohammad Mustafa, provided a very comprehensive and convincing update on what his government has done since his cabinet came into office. Plans that were applauded by the donors, including the European Union and the United States of America, my co-chairs of AHLC.

However, in many of the years that we were doing this work, we were wondering whether we were part of the solution, or part of the problem. On a good day, we were part of the solution, because we were building the quintessential institution that is necessary if you want to have a state. Sometimes we recognise states without really having all institutions and the interior of a state in place. So, our intention was that when the key institutions of a Palestinian state were established, the Palestinian government was sufficiently robust to be able to cooperate with Israel in a constructive manner, but also to provide the key services and provide for the aspirations of the Palestinian people.

However, on bad day, we were thinking we were part of the problem, because we were just creating a "process", which some people just saw as becoming the status quo - as a kind of status in itself. And of course, a process is good if it leads to something good, but it can be quite harmful if it does not lead to anything. At some point we realised that we could not go on like this eternally.

President,

And what has happened now? I'm not going to repeat what so many have said about the immense atrocities and the violence and the death and destruction which has been bestowed upon the people of Israel, the people of Palestine, both in Gaza and in the West Bank, and now also in Lebanon. And the fear that it will expand into other countries in the region, and that even some of the peace accords that were agreed decades ago could now be in trouble.

Out of that, we realised that we had to change gear. Together with Slovenia, Spain and Ireland - and I applaud Slovenia for your excellent work on this and as President of the Council - we decided in May this year, to join the already long list of countries that have recognized Palestine, 149 right now. That leaves 44 of the 193 member states of the UN.

As mentioned by His Highness, the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia, Prince Faisal Al Saud, yesterday we launched the Global Alliance for the implementation of a Palestinian State and a two-state solution. This Alliance brings together a number of countries that believe that we have to change gears and accelerate this work now and try to get out of the current deadlock. Try to use this deep crisis as an opportunity to move forward.

We urge all member states to contribute to the universal recognition of the Palestinian state and its UN membership, and to strengthen the institutions of the State of Palestine so that they are ready to live up to the expectations of their people in the West Bank, but also to prepare for their return to Gaza. We want one Palestine, not different Palestine. We want to realise one united Palestine as envisioned in the Oslo Accords. Which means that the institutions that we know as the State of Palestine, finally will become the real, existing, universally recognised state of Palestine.

But also, as was mentioned by in the intervention of Saudi Arabia, that this would be anchored in a broader regional setting of normalization, where countries in the region would be ready to provide for the security guarantees of Israelis and Palestinians alike. This is an updated vision, based on the Arab peace formula that was launched in 2002 but adapted to today's realities.

Many speakers have invoked the ICJ advisory opinion of July this year, which very clearly points out in its legal language that the occupation is illegal, that it amounts to annexation, and that it must come to an end. Most of the UN member states confirmed this position in the GA-resolution last week. Which was the first resolution ever introduced by the Palestinian Mission and supported by many others, including my own country.

President,

In this context, I want to share with the Council the following observation. Of course, Israel must be part of a final, peaceful settlement. But it does not any longer make sense that if you are illegally occupying other people's lands, you maintain an absolute eternal veto on everything that is going to happen in that area. It runs counter to international law. It does not fit with how the vast majority on the planet sees it. This must change.

Madam president, I'm happy to sit beside Israel. We have no problem with diplomacy. We think that when we disagree, we do better speak to each other than canceling each other. So, I'm happily sitting right here, and I want to say to our friends from Israel, Norway was an enthusiastic supporter of the establishment of the Jewish homeland of Israel, and we still are.

We want Israelis to thrive and prosper safely, securely, without terrorism, without having to fear for their lives in Israel. But we have the same love for the Palestinian people. We want the Palestinian people to thrive and prosper and live securely and safely in Palestine. And we do believe that the people of Israel and the people of Palestine are much more likely to do that if there is a two-state solution. And we think that this is exactly the moment to arrive at the two-state solution. Which is why this is the moment to move forward. To think outside the box and to try to move towards real progress.

I want to remind the Council that it is bestowed on the Council to be the primary organ of maintaining international peace and security, and international law in accordance with the UN principles, in accordance with the UN charter, as the as the Secretary-General told us at the opening of the GA. International law is in trouble. It's in serious trouble in Ukraine. It's in trouble in the Middle East and so many other places.

This is an excellent opportunity to turn a very deep, alarmingly dangerous crisis into a major opportunity. And it's time to implement a Palestinian state so that we can implement a two state solution.

I thank you, Madam President.