Andrew Feinstein, Jack Cinamon – How Norway, home of the Nobel Peace Prize, profits from war in Gaza

Oslo has divested from some Israeli companies but its $2 trillion sovereign wealth fund remains heavily invested in arms companies supplying Israel’s military

Andrew Feinstein is a former ANC MP. He served under Nelson Mandela in South Africa’s first democratic parliament following a period in exile fighting apartheid.

Jack Cinamon is a Researcher at Shadow World Investigations and Research-Coordinator at Corruption Tracker

Cross-posted from Middle East Eye

Image

 

Norges Bank headquarters

Creative Commons: I, the copyright holder of this work, release this work into the public domain

Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, long celebrated as a model of ethical investment, was praised earlier this year for divesting from a handful of Israeli firms.

This Friday, the Scandinavian country will take centre stage as the latest winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, which has long honoured those who have pursued the causes of disarmament, arms control, and conflict resolution, is announced in Oslo, as it has been since the award’s conception in 1901.

Although of Swedish origin, Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite, chose to have the Peace Prize awarded by a Norwegian committee, unlike his other eponymous prizes which are based in Stockholm.

An educated guess behind Nobel’s possible motivations points to the fact that “he might have in fact, considered Norway a more peace-oriented and more democratic country than Sweden” at a time when the two countries were united under a common monarchy – an arrangement that was dissolved in 1905.

In the same year, the Peace Prize was awarded to Baroness Bertha von Suttner, an Austro-Bohemian aristocrat, author and disarmament campaigner who was honoured “for her audacity to oppose the horrors of war”.

Yet beyond the headlines, and Norway’s reputation as a purveyor of soft-power pacifism, lies a contradiction.

New research by Shadow World Investigations for Middle East Eye shows the government-owned fund is deeply invested in the very industry fuelling Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

The Norwegian Oil Fund, officially known as the Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG), is the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world, holding assets worth more than $2 trillion.

Built on the windfalls from Norway’s decades-old oil and gas industry, its scale dwarfs that of equivalent funds such as Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, the UAE’s Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, or the Kuwait Investment Authority, each of which holds assets worth around $1 trillion.

Its current investments include more than £20bn ($26bn) in shares in 49 of the world’s top 100 arms companies, the majority of which are either directly or indirectly supplying Israel.

These holdings appear to conflict with the fund’s own ethical guidelines which require it to exclude companies based on a number of criteria including serious or systemic violations of human rights, and serious violations of individuals’ rights in situations of war or conflict.

For instance, Elbit, Israel’s largest weapons company, has been excluded from the fund since 2009, based on its supply of a surveillance system deployed along the separation barrier built in the West Bank.

The fund’s Council on Ethics, which makes recommendations on exclusions to the managers of the fund and the Norwegian government, advised that investment in Elbit would constitute “ an unacceptable risk of complicity in serious violations of fundamental ethical norms”.

Investments in arms companies linked to Israel also appear at odds with Norway’s support for Palestinian rights and statehood, and its longstanding role as a stakeholder in the Oslo Accords, the landmark agreements signed between Israel and Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) in the early 1990s.

Widely hailed at the time as a step towards peace, the signing of the first accord led to Arafat and his Israeli counterparts across the negotiating tables, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, sharing the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize.

The prize has periodically been awarded to those seen as pursuing peace in the Middle East.

Other past recipients include Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin in recognition of the 1978 peace agreement between the two countries, and Ralph Bunche, the American diplomat credited with arranging a ceasefire between Israel and Arab states in 1948.

The naming of this year’s winner at Oslo’s City Hall is set to take place in the shadow of ongoing efforts to end the two-year war in Gaza and the announcement by US President Donald Trump on Wednesday that Israel and Hamas had agreed to a ceasefire as part of the first phase of a peace deal.

Recent divestments

Against the backdrop of Israel’s devastation of Gaza, Norway has aligned closer to states and movements backing Palestinian rights.

Along with Spain and Ireland, Norway formally recognised the state of Palestine in May 2024, with Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store declaring that “the Palestinian people have a fundamental, independent right to self-determination”.

In May, Norway’s Deputy Foreign Minister Andreas Motzfeldt Kravik told MEE that Israel’s siege on Gaza was “unconscionable and deeply illegal”.

But while parts of Norwegian civil society have embraced the global BDS campaign, the government in Oslo has stopped short of endorsing it.

Instead, it has focused on targeted measures, such as excluding from the fund companies found to be complicit in violations of international law.

In August, the fund announced divestments from six firms it said were implicated in land dispossession and war crimes in Palestine.

These included US construction giant Caterpillar, and five firms in Israel’s banking sector: FIBI Holdings, First International Bank of Israel, Mizrahi Tefahot Bank, Bank Hapoalim and Bank Leumi. Earlier in May, they also decided to exclude the country’s largest energy provider, Paz Retail and Energy Ltd.

These decisions followed a series of earlier exclusions, as the government called on Norges Bank, Norway’s central bank which manages the fund, to review its Israeli investments, citing the “deteriorating situation” in Gaza and the West Bank.

In mid-August, the fund said it had reduced its investments in Israel to 38 companies, down from 61, having divested from 23 since the end of June.

These measures appeared to underscore how the fund’s Council on Ethics, which makes recommendations about divestments, and Norges Bank’s executive board at times have been willing to act in accordance with its ethical guidelines.

Yet the picture is far from consistent.

Concerns under international law

In April, Francesca Albanese, the United Nations special rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, wrote to Jens Stoltenberg, the Norwegian finance minister, to warn him that the fund’s investments in Israeli companies and arms manufacturers supplying Israel risked putting Norway in breach of international law.

Albanese’s letter accused the fund of being “one of the leading European investors in a number of weapons manufacturers, for which we have reasonable grounds to believe they are supplying Israel”.

A month later, Albanese wrote again to Stoltenberg, calling for the fund to “fully and unconditionally divest from all entities linked to Israel’s unlawful presence in the occupied Palestinian territory”.

Albanese told Stoltenberg that Palestinian self-determination had “never faced greater peril”, warning that the existence of Palestinian life “hangs in the balance”.

“Norway represents a lighthouse for so many and has the power to make an historical difference,” she wrote.

“Never has this power been so real; today the Norwegian people and their political leaders are called to decide how they will use it and ensure that accountability helps unlock the titanium cage of Israel’s forever occupation.”

Albanese’s concerns are widely echoed by civil society groups in Norway who are also calling for the fund to divest from the arms industry.

Rami Samandar, spokesperson for Aksjonsgruppa for Palestina (Action Group for Palestine), part of a coalition of around 55 organisations applying pressure on the fund’s executives to divest, told Middle East Eye: “Investing in companies that arm and sustain Israel is not just bad ethics – it makes Norway complicit in genocide and erodes the very foundation of international law.”

He went further, stressing that, “every dollar the Oil Fund puts into arms companies sends a message: that profit is worth more than Palestinian lives. This is unacceptable and must end.”

Mads Harlem, a lawyer and adviser on international law at Save the Children Norway, told MEE: “The Norwegian Oil Fund’s investments in the arms industry are not in accordance with Norway’s obligations under international law to prevent serious violations in conflict zones.”

Why invest in weapons?

Norway’s Oil Fund invests in the arms sector for two key reasons.

The first is profitability: arms companies offer steady demand, predictable returns and relatively low risk because of their government backing.

The second reason is strategic. Such investments align with geopolitical interests and help reinforce international relationships. Norway and its Scandinavian neighbours, all now Nato members and pressed up close against Russia, are all reviewing their own defensive needs in light of the war in Ukraine.

Periods of war often drive demand even higher, boosting profits, though they can complicate these strategic relationships.

It is this profitability and geopolitical balancing act that makes this divestment campaign so challenging. Against these, the fund is also supposed to consider mounting environmental, social, and governance (ESG) pressures and the ethical dilemma of profiting from conflict, or, in the case of Gaza, genocide.

In response to Albanese’s letters, Stoltenberg affirmed that “according to the information available to the Council on Ethics last year, there were no companies in the Fund with ongoing deliveries of relevant types of weapons to Israel, and some companies with ongoing deliveries were supplying military equipment that does not fall under the exclusion criterion”.

In the context of direct licences of exports to Israel, this may be partially true, since many European governments have pledged not to export arms to Israel that could be used in Gaza, but the claim that these companies are not indirectly supplying Israel through other means as part of the global supply chain does not stand up to scrutiny.

Arms company investments

The fund’s largest arms investments are, unsurprisingly, in the United States, where Norway owns holdings worth over £13.2bn in 27 arms companies.

The rapidly expanding Palantir Technologies, a recent entry in the list of the top 100 arms companies, has received the most investment, at $3.56bn.

Palantir entered into a “strategic partnership” with Israel’s Ministry of Defense in early 2024 to provide AI-powered tools and technology for “war-related missions”. Its systems are crucial to Israel’s much-criticised targeting practices. Palantir’s CEO, Alex Karp has consistently reiterated that “Palantir stands with Israel”.

Palantir, in response to previous reporting on its relationship with the Israeli military, has said it has “no involvement” in Israeli targeting systems.

Other significant investments include RTX, formerly Raytheon, for around $2.3bn. RTX manufactures missiles, bombs and components for fighter jets and other weapons used by the Israeli military.

In addition, the Fund holds $3.35bn worth of shares in General Electric which supplies engines for Israel’s F-16 fighter jets, Apache helicopters, CH-53K helicopters and Sa’ar-class navy warships.

Amphenol, with $2.1bn of Norwegian investment, operates facilities in Israel which produce electrical and electronic connectors for military use.

A number of other US arms companies that the fund invests in are involved in the supply chain of the F-35 fighter jet.

The F-35 programme is a US-led international partnership that depends on components manufactured in multiple countries, which are then shipped to the United States for final assembly by Lockheed Martin, before delivery to countries including Israel. The UK, for example, produces 16.2 percent of each aircraft.

Partner nations to the programme have continued supplying these components to the global supply pool to avoid undermining US confidence in them or in Nato, even despite some countries banning direct exports of the same components to Israel.

These investments clearly demonstrate a level of complicity on Norway’s part in arming Israel indirectly through its holdings of US stock.

While some of these companies are not as well known as US arms makers such as Lockheed Martin or Boeing, their relative anonymity provides a veil of plausible deniability, insulating Norway’s actions from further scrutiny.

The fund also holds significant investment in the European arms sector, including more than £2.4bn in five of the largest UK defence companies.

In 2018, the Fund divested from BAE Systems, the largest UK arms company, following a recommendation from the Council of Ethics due to BAE Systems’ participation in nuclear weapons production.

Yet, UK investments in the arms sector continues: the largest is in Rolls-Royce, with almost $2.5bn held.

Rolls-Royce is an integral partner to the production of the F-35, as well as the production of the engines for the Merkava tanks and Israeli ships via its German subsidiary MTU. Again, these components are often shipped to the US for assembly before making their way to Israel.

Other investments in UK companies include $84m in QinetiQ and $592m in Melrose, both of which are involved in the F-35 supply chain; for example QinetiQ Australia provides components for the fighter jet, while Melrose’s involvement stems from its ownership of GKN Aerospace.

Another UK company in Norway’s portfolio is Babcock International, worth $122m.

It maintains it does not provide weapons to Israel, but with partnerships involving Israeli arms companies Israeli Aerospace Industries (IAI), Elbit and Rafael Systems, the distinction between “not involved” and “indirectly arming” appears increasingly blurry.

A spokesperson for Babcock International said: “Babcock does not provide defence support or equipment to Israel. We continue to work in collaboration with Israeli suppliers to deliver for our UK Ministry of Defence customer.”

Norway’s fund also invests in French arms companies, including Thales, worth £367m, and Dassault Aviation, worth £95m. Thales supplies Israel’s military with vital components such as drone transponders.

Dassault has an office in Raanana, Israel, demonstrating its strong ties to the country’s weapons industry.

The fund’s largest German holding is in Rheinmetall, worth well over £1.3bn, alongside additional stakes in Hensoldt worth £110m and RENK worth £94m.

Rheinmetall is co-developing a self-propelled Howitzer system with Israel’s Elbit Systems, although the extent of its weapons used by Israel is unclear.

A Rheinmetall spokesperson said: “Rheinmetall does not supply any weapons of war to Israel. Israel accounts for a very low single-digit percentage of the Group’s total sales.”

Renk, on the other hand, produces the transmission systems used by Israel’s main battle tank, the Merkava; while Hensoldt partners with various Israeli arms companies including ELTA Systems to provide radar systems.

Further investments extend widely to various arms companies across the world, including companies in Canada, India, Ireland, Luxembourg, South Korea and Sweden.

Each of these companies contributes in some form to the direct or indirect supply of weapons or military support to Israel. Middle East Eye approached all of the companies named in this article for comment.

The Leonardo contradiction

One company that has become a focal point of the divestment campaign in Norway is Anglo-Italian arms company Leonardo S.p.A., in which the Oil Fund holds shares of around £256m.

Leonardo supplies various weapons for Israel, including guns for warships, and through the F-35 fighter jet programme. It also provides other military tech through a vast array of global subsidiaries.

Leonardo did not respond to MEE’s request for comment. In an interview last month with Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, Roberto Cingolani, the company’s chief executive, denied that the company’s involvement in the F-35 programme meant that it was complicit in genocide.

Cingolani said: “Of course, we participate in consortia for the construction of numerous defence technologies and platforms. But to say that we are co-responsible for genocide seems to me to be an unacceptable stretch.”

Leonardo is also involved in the production of French nuclear weapons through MBDA, a joint venture with BAE Systems and Airbus. This alone should be reason for Leonardo’s exclusion, since the fund’s ethical guidelines also prohibit investments in the development and production of nuclear weapons.

In 2017, Leonardo was placed under observation by Norges Bank after the Council on Ethics warned of an unacceptable risk of the company’s involvement in gross corruption.

But this decision was reversed in 2022, with the council concluding the risk was no longer unacceptable – the first time such a recommendation had been withdrawn.

Anti-arms trade campaigners accuse Leonardo of a “long history of allegations of corruption in its international arms sales business”, albeit as a major player in a global business in which few companies could claim to be whiter than white.

In one case, the company was implicated in the Indonesian Air Force’s AW101 helicopter deal, where millions in bribes were paid to middlemen, one of whom received a ten-year prison sentence in 2023.

Leonardo has claimed to be a “leading company in the fight against corruption”. Commenting last year on the Indonesian case, it said its activities are “carried out in full compliance with both national and international regulations, and in strict application of the compliance principles defined by the company”.

But what appears clear is that those responsible for managing Norway’s fund have had reason to question Leonardo’s place in its portfolio over many years prior to current scrutiny over the company’s role as a weapons supplier to Israel.

Perhaps political, economic and strategic interests weigh more on their minds than ethical considerations.

Leonardo is partially state-owned, with the Italian government as its largest shareholder.

The company also commands a vast global footprint, operating numerous subsidiaries spanning various borders, while also maintaining a strong presence in the UK, where it is a major supplier to the Ministry of Defence.

This issue has become especially pressing in light of recent developments: the UK has just agreed a £10bn warship deal with Norway, in which Leonardo helicopters are listed as an option.

Norway already operates Leonardo’s AW101 helicopters, continuing a relationship that the company says has been “built on almost five decades as a key partner of the Royal Norwegian Air Force”.

Asked by MEE about its investments in the arms industry and their links to Israel’s war in Gaza, a spokesperson from Norges Bank Investment Management said: “The fund is invested in line with the decisions made by the Norwegian Parliament and in accordance with the mandate we have been given by the Ministry of Finance.

“Based on the Council on Ethics’ recommendations, Norges Bank has excluded several companies due to serious violations of the rights of individuals in situations of war or conflict, an exclusion criterion under the guidelines.”

Public pressure

While Norway has been applauded for excluding certain Israeli companies and others complicit in the destruction of Palestine and its people, activists say that until it divests fully from the arms industry, its complicity in Israeli genocide continues.

This divestment demand is backed by growing public pressure.

Around 65,000 people have signed a petition calling for divestment, which activists delivered directly to the Norwegian minister of foreign affairs in March 2024.

Activists have also taken to mass demonstrations and direct action: from occupying the lobby of the Ministry of Finance to blocking the entrance of Norges Bank’s Oil Fund management offices, as well as the Council of Ethics. Yet their country remains heavily invested in the global arms trade.

Samandar, from Action Group for Palestine, said: “Norwegian people have shown clearly that they do not accept complicity in war crimes – 65,000 signatures, mass demonstrations, and civil disobedience all point to one demand: divest now.”



BRAVE NEW EUROPE is one of the very few Resistance Media in Europe. We publish expert analyses and reports by some of the leading thinkers from across the world who you will not find in state and corporate mainstream media. Support us in our work.

To donate please go HERE

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*