Why is the Progress Party’s Gulati criticizing Israeli Construction that complies with the Oslo Accords?

Ma’ale Adumim (poto credits: iStock Media)

For decades the Progress Party (Frp) has presented itself as Norway’s most Israel-friendly party, and that is still true.

It is therefore alarming that Himanshu Gulati — the party’s leading foreign-policy voice and second deputy chair of Stortinget’s

Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee — appears in Wednesday’s VG to have allowed himself to be pushed by Labor’s Trine Lise Sundnes into criticizing the Israeli government’s lawful development of E1.

VG quoted him as follows (I hope he will correct it):

«We are, and have previously been, critical of the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank,» Gulati tells VG. «Even though this conflict — like every other conflict in the world — is not black and white, there is no doubt that the settlements make a two-state solution harder to achieve.»

VG adds, almost in passing:

«The last time the Progress Party publicly criticized Israeli settlements is said to have been around 2010, according to information given to VG.»

I assume Gulati, the Progress Party and Labor know how the Oslo Accords divide the territory. Yet here Gulati is speaking in the same terms as British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband, the Støre government, and 18 countries inside and outside the EU.

Miliband recently called Israel’s announcement of construction tenders in E1 an unacceptable and destructive act. The Støre government joined a statement by those 18 countries demanding that Israel stop the plans at once because they supposedly violate international law.

It is worrying that Gulati is repeating that line. E1 lies in Area C of the Oslo Accords — the part of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) under full Israeli control, including planning and zoning. That is why Israel can issue tenders without approval from the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah.

The Israeli government stresses that E1 is essential to the security and future of a united Jerusalem.

The main arguments are these: The corridor links Jerusalem with Ma’ale Adumim so the city does not become an isolated enclave, as Mount Scopus was before 1967; the project protects the Jerusalem–Jericho road, seen as the main route for moving forces into the Jordan Valley in a crisis; and it gives strategic depth against any threat from the east.

They also argue that the settlement is needed so Jerusalem and Ma’ale Adumim can grow in a natural way, and that the land is part of Israel’s historical and sovereign territory.

I expect the Progress Party to keep setting the standard in Norway’s poorly informed Israel debate by making clear that building in E1 is both Israel’s right and a necessity for the security of Jerusalem and of Israel.