Optimism and Reality of the Gaza Peace Proposal

The terrorists of Hamas have accepted part of U.S. President Donald Trump’s peace proposal. First, they are ready to release their remaining hostages, and second, they agree to relinquish power in Gaza – though only in favor of an independent Palestinian leadership.

As a result, Israel has announced that it will scale back its operations in Gaza to a “minimum,” conducting only defensive missions in the area – something Trump himself encouraged them to do. Thus, with their statement, Hamas fighters have at least gained a brief respite.

At the same time, it is clear that Hamas has not committed to all parts of Trump’s peace plan. One particularly crucial element is the disarmament – or demilitarization – of this terrorist organization.

It remains to be seen how the situation in Gaza and the entire Holy Land will develop from here. In other words, will Hamas manage to evade the demands placed upon it – and if not, will hostilities with Israel resume immediately after the release of the hostages?

This also gives Hamas some room to maneuver; it might seek to delay the handover of hostages in order to reorganize and strengthen its military operations. And if that happens, one must ask: at what point will Israel and Trump lose their patience?

All in all, it would of course be best if Hamas accepted all the terms of the agreement. On the other hand, the most important thing for everyone – not least for ordinary Palestinians in Gaza – would be Hamas’s disarmament, which would in any case put an end to the fighting in the region.

However, I suspect that this is the last condition on Trump’s list that Hamas would ever agree to – if it agrees at all. And therefore, it remains to be seen whether this morning’s optimism will turn out to be merely an illusion, one that shatters as soon as we return to Gaza’s grim reality and the distorted worldview of the terrorists who sustain it.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland May Recognize Palestine as an Independent State
Palestine’s Statehood and International Law
When Should the Independence of Palestine Be Recognized?

Is Cable Cutting a Crime Without Punishment?

Finland detained a vessel named Eagle S, which had dragged its anchor across the seabed and damaged submarine cables in the Baltic Sea. The investigation took some time, after which the evidence was submitted to a Finnish district court, i.e., the lowest judicial instance.

Instead of assessing the criminal liability of the act and delivering a verdict to those found guilty, the district court ruled that it had no jurisdiction to decide in such a criminal case. Therefore, the matter should be dealt with either in the courts of the crew’s home countries or in the courts of the flag state of the Eagle S. In other words, the case would fall under the jurisdiction of the Cook Islands, Georgia, or India.

However, Professor Ulla Tapaninen, a maritime transport expert at Tallinn University of Technology, has noted that “district courts often prefer to move complex cases up to higher judicial levels.” For this reason, she argues it is reasonable that the Eagle S case would be escalated from the district court to the court of appeal, which is one step higher in the judicial hierarchy.

In other words, the Finnish professor at the Estonian university assumes that the legal proceedings will continue in Finland. This raises the question: if that happens, will the court of appeal consider itself competent—contrary to the district court’s conclusion—to convict the crew of the Eagle S?

And if that is the case, who will bear the costs? The Finnish taxpayer, who has already been burdened with bills amounting to hundreds of thousands of euros?

And what would happen after such a farce? Would the case then be transferred to the courts of the Cook Islands, Georgia, or India—or would the legal consequences of the damage caused by the Eagle S to the submarine cables ultimately remain unaddressed?

And furthermore, if that is the case, does it mean that in the future the submarine cables running along the seabed of the Baltic Sea and other seas may be cut at will and without consequences?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Did Russia Realize the Risk Was Too Great?
Sabotage in the Baltic Sea Sparks Calls for New Maritime Borders
Finland Detains Russia-Linked Ship Suspected of Cable Damage

Just Another Case of Multiculturality in Manchester, UK

A terrorist attack has been carried out at a synagogue in Manchester, UK. The suspected perpetrator was a bald man with a big black beard.

There is nothing particularly unusual about the case, since recent years have shown that as multiculturalism increases, the number of terrorist incidents has also risen throughout Europe. The only strange thing is that the majority of the native population in each country seems to accept the situation without much protest.

That is why it will be interesting to see what the future of an increasingly multicultural Europe will look like. At this stage, one can only hope for the best, but fear the worst. 

And vote in elections to ensure that Europe, despite everything, will remain European—that is, composed of democratic states that respect human rights, and where the violence caused by multiculturalism can somehow be rooted out. If it cannot be achieved by good means, then other measures must be used—measures that will suffice.

It seems this is also the way of thinking in Britain, where Reform UK has risen to become by far the most popular party. One can only hope that if—and when—it wins the next parliamentary elections, it will use the mandate it receives from the people effectively. 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Understanding of European Terrorism by Left-wing and Value-liberal Politicians
Multiple Stabbings Reported in Tampere, Finland
Will Tomorrow’s Elections in Germany Be a Turning Point

Why Do Russians Tolerate Broken Infrastructure?

Ukraine has sought to undermine Vladimir Putin’s “special operation” by bringing the war into Russians’ homes, namely by destroying infrastructure. As a result, there are occasional shortages of fuel for cars, and home heating does not always function.

The Ukrainians’ tactic seems sound in itself, but Pekka Toveri (National Coalition Party), former Chief of Intelligence at the Finnish Defence Command and now a Member of the European Parliament, reminded of one problem. According to him, “in a dictatorship, the risk of going out into the streets is great, because if you are not shot, you will spend decades in a prison camp.”

For this reason, Russians can endure the kind of misery that would lead to massive riots in Western countries. The choice is easy, since—as Toveri put it—“the alternative is a bullet in the forehead.”

It remains to be seen what the winter will bring. In the best-case scenario, heating failures and cold homes will eventually lead to a popular uprising and the collapse of Putin’s regime—along with peace for Ukraine. In the worst case, Russians will direct their anger toward Ukraine, and the people will unite more firmly than ever behind Putin’s “special operation.”

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Ukraine Got Permission to Strike – But Where is the Target?
Will Trump Finally Stand Up to Vladimir Putin?
Is This the Start of Putin’s Final Countdown?