The so-called Jewish Clause – more accurately referred to as the Religion Clause – constituted the legal foundation of Article 2 of the Norwegian Constitution, as it stood between 1814 and 1851. The original wording provided as follows: “Jesuits and monastic orders shall not be tolerated. Jews remain excluded from admission to the Realm.”
This policy of exclusion was rooted in conspiratorial notions concerning the alleged unreliability of the Jewish people, together with the perception that they posed a significant economic threat to the citizens of the Realm. The justification for denying them entry was therefore not exclusively confessional in nature, but based on secular claims of disloyalty and economic danger. For a further 37 years, Jews were denied entry into Norway and barred from engaging in trade. The constitutional significance of this exclusion was underscored by its placement as Article 2, immediately following the provision defining Norway’s national sovereignty.
In today’s political landscape, one may observe a tendency for similar ideas to circulate in the public sphere. On 19 June, the Støre government submitted a legislative proposal for consultation entitled: “Act on a Trade Ban with Israeli Settlements in Palestine”. This legislative proposal entails a comprehensive prohibition on the import and export of goods to and from Israeli settlements. It further prescribes a ban on the acquisition of real property, the provision of services related to construction and renovation, and the purchase and sale of businesses headquartered in those areas. At the same time, the proposal specifies that what it refers to as “Palestinian” (= Arab) activity and humanitarian assistance are to be exempted, while violations are proposed to be punishable by criminal sanctions:
“The proposed legislation entails a prohibition on importing goods from the Israeli settlements in Palestine and a prohibition on exporting goods to those same settlements. It also proposes prohibiting the purchase of real property in the settlements, the provision of services related to the construction, renovation, purchase or sale of property there, and the acquisition of businesses whose headquarters and production are located in the settlements. At the same time, the proposal exempts legitimate Palestinian activities and humanitarian assistance. Violations of the Act will constitute criminal offences.”
It is legitimate to raise critical questions concerning the historical and legal foundations of such an initiative. The use of the designation “Palestine” in this context is conceptually problematic, since such a state has never historically existed. A boycott of goods from Judea and Samaria – regions forming part of a historical homeland more than 3,500 years old – appears to constitute selective discrimination against Jews. It is therefore imperative to undertake a legal assessment of whether this form of differentiated treatment is contrary to the principles of the Constitution.
When a government formally declares that products manufactured by Jews in their historical heartland are illegal, this may confer state legitimacy upon radical groups. Such institutionalised demonisation may translate directly into increased antisemitism and potential violence. What we are witnessing is an escalating demonisation in academia, the media and politics, where false claims of occupation and accusations of genocide – which may be characterised as modern blood libels – are permitted to escalate without contradiction.
Contemporary events reinforce this concern. Recently, an opinion article was published in Aftenposten by a Jewish artist who did not dare reveal his identity for fear of reprisals. In Narvik, radical activists undertook an operation to identify Jewish train passengers in order to prevent them from entering the town. Furthermore, institutions such as NTNU have declined to distance themselves from Professor Bassam Hussein, who publicly praised the massacre in Israel on 7 October 2023 as “7 Oct – the most beautiful thing to have happened in our century.” Even the Trøndelag Police displayed a lack of resolve in that case, despite a complaint lodged by a Norwegian Jew.
Why Only Israel?
The government’s political line appears marked by considerable inconsistency, since no comparable sanctions proposals have ever been advanced against regimes exercising indisputable occupations. For example, no similar reaction has been directed against China’s occupation of Tibet or Turkey’s occupation of parts of Kurdistan and Northern Cyprus. The fact that the Norwegian authorities choose to recognise, or passively accept, these occupations while focusing exclusively on an alleged occupation in Israel undermines the credibility of the moral arguments being advanced.
This approach, which singles out only Israel and the Jews, and in which Norway appears to compete with nations such as Belgium, Spain and Ireland in adopting the most confrontational line, has deep historical roots. One must compare it with the Arab oil embargo of 1973, geopolitical pressure on Europe, and demands for a more hostile attitude towards the State of Israel – the region’s only functioning democracy. More than 50 years of conciliatory policies have contributed to a civilisation that appears to be in gradual decline. Instead of concentrating on their own problems, Europe’s politicians choose to divert attention towards the scapegoat, Israel.
The vision of a world without the State of Israel appears to be shared by certain European circles as well as by the totalitarian regimes in Iran and Turkey, despite lacking support in political reality. Several decades of attempts to exert economic pressure on Israel have proved ineffective. While Europe faces major economic challenges, the Israeli economy has demonstrated remarkable resilience and growth after October 2023, despite an ongoing existential conflict.
Gahr Støre’s Political Gesture
One must ask what the true objective of this symbolic policy is. Is the intention genuinely to boycott essential Israeli products in high technology, medicine, security and avionics? Or has Israel become a convenient scapegoat capable of diverting attention from Norway’s own societal challenges?
If opposition to occupation is indeed a fundamental principle of the Støre government’s foreign policy, then, as stated above, the lack of attention devoted to regions such as Tibet and Northern Cyprus constitutes a striking inconsistency. By prioritising a situation with a complex status under international law while overlooking other documented occupations, the government weakens its own moral and political authority. This raises the question of whether the policy is founded on universal principles or whether it is instead an expression of political symbolism.
Gahr Støre knows that Israel will never relinquish Judea and Samaria. Not only because the area forms part of the Jews’ ancient homeland, as the name itself indicates, but equally because doing so would amount to capitulation to PLO and Hamas terrorists who are merely waiting for the opportunity to carry out an October massacre against every Jew in Israel. The confrontation with the terrorist regime in Iran, Hezbollah, the PLO and Hamas has demonstrated Israel’s strength, not necessarily solely because of technological superiority, which the boycott now seeks to target, but because the population now stands united in the collective determination that another Holocaust must never take place. That constitutes the nation’s fundamental driving force.
The boycott policies pursued by Norway and the European Union have, to a very limited extent, produced the desired results. While regional processes such as the Abraham Accords have laid the foundations for normalisation between Israel and the Arab states, representing a paradigm shift in regional integration between Israel and several neighbouring countries, the European and Norwegian boycott approach appears characterised by considerations of realpolitik and attempts to balance internal political tensions against external economic interests.
At the same time, Israel has, over several decades, diversified its strategic alliances. By building security and economic ties with nations in Eastern Europe, Africa and Asia – based upon a shared understanding of transnational security threats – Israel has positioned itself as a central actor in the struggle against radical extremism.
It therefore appears unlikely that symbolic sanctions or political pressure from the Norwegian authorities, or from the European Union, will bring about changes in Israel’s security strategy. For the Israeli state, national sovereignty and national security carry greater weight than European diplomatic gestures. At the same time, there is a legitimate concern that the proposed legislation may contribute to increased antisemitism in Norway, which would primarily affect the country’s Jewish minority. As far as Israel is concerned, any boycott law would in practice be of vanishingly little significance.