Finland’s Foreign Minister Explained Why the States That Have Recognized Palestine Are Well-Meaning Fools

Peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians are set to begin in Cairo, Egypt. The starting points are promising, as a representative of the extremist group Hamas assures that the organization seeks to reach an agreement to end the war in Gaza.

However, right at the outset, the organization has demanded that Israel immediately cease all military operations in Gaza if it wants to reach an agreement — a stance that has hardly helped build trust in the terrorists. On the positive side, Hamas has also expressed its own willingness to stop fighting, provided Israel does the same.

In other words, the situation remains tense, and there is no certainty about the outcome. Therefore, the rest of the world should aim to help facilitate the formation of an agreement.

* * *

Finland’s Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen (National Coalition Party) has stated that she hopes a ceasefire can be implemented immediately, as the release of hostages has been awaited for nearly two years. This, she says, would hopefully also allow sufficient humanitarian aid to reach Gaza and help calm the situation across the region.

According to Valtonen, Finland’s position is that Hamas must be disarmed. In her words, “the point now is that disarmament simply must be achieved. We cannot accept any kind of terrorist organization at the helm of any territory — and especially not of a future state.”

She also emphasized that “we support the two-state model. That in itself means that the State of Palestine will be recognized. But this requires that the Palestinian administration be a civilian government committed to nonviolence and to ensuring security for Israel, neighboring countries, and its own people.”

In other words, it is not yet sensible to recognize the State of Palestine; instead, the promise of independence should be used as an incentive to achieve a positive outcome in the peace negotiations. Unfortunately, most of the world’s countries have already, in their folly, played that card.

Thus, their actions — the premature recognition of Palestine — can well be described as the work of well-meaning fools, which will hopefully not have too great an impact on the outcome of the negotiations. However, should that happen, it would be wise to learn from it when resolving future crises.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Optimism and Reality of the Gaza Peace Proposal
Finland May Recognize Palestine as an Independent State
Palestine’s Statehood and International Law

Why Hamas Is Unwilling to Give Up Its Weapons

Representatives of the terrorist organization Hamas are scheduled to meet with mediators of the ceasefire negotiations in Cairo, Egypt. Perhaps for that reason, Hamas has announced that it is ready to release all remaining hostages and agree to a five-year ceasefire.

However, it refuses to give up its weapons, which has been Israel’s condition for peace. In other words, Hamas’s proposal is unlikely to have been made in earnest — although of course, I would very much hope that it were.

This led me to reflect on why Hamas insists on keeping its weapons. During the Gaza war, it has become extremely clear that their weapons are of no real use against the Israeli army, and thus the organization is completely incapable of protecting Palestinian civilians with them.

This leaves two obvious possibilities. In my view, the more likely one is that Hamas uses its weapons to maintain control over the Gaza Strip by suppressing dissent among Palestinians. The motive for holding on to power is the opportunity it provides for personal enrichment and a comfortable life.

This fact is illustrated by the enormous wealth amassed by Palestinian leaders — for example, the billions of dollars in assets owned by the family of the late Ismael Haniyeh, or Khalid Mashal’s fortune, reportedly reaching up to many billion euros. Similarly, Yahya Sinwar, who led Gaza until his death, and Mussa Abu Marzouk also had fortunes amounting to billions.

The second — though in my opinion less likely — possibility is that Hamas intends to continue using its weapons for terrorist attacks against Jews. Without significant military capability, such attacks would be reduced to sporadic stabbings and similar — repugnant yet relatively minor — actions, making it impossible for terrorists to even dream of carrying out assaults similar to that of October 7 in the future.

As a result, Hamas and its leadership might find it difficult to maintain their popularity among Palestinians. The effectiveness of terrorism is illustrated by the fact that every terror attack committed in Western countries has been wildly celebrated by many Palestinians (example).

Of course, the two possibilities I have described are not mutually exclusive. Rather, their combination provides a strong motive for refusing to surrender weapons. And naturally, there may be a variety of other reasons for retaining them as well. However, it is clear — as I have stated — that Hamas’s weapons have absolutely nothing to do with defending Palestinians from any potential threat posed by Israel. 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
In Finland, the Enemy Is Clear – and Now the Truth Is Emerging for the Palestinians Too
The Complete Demilitarization of Gaza: What Would It Mean for the Palestinians?
Questions to the Winners of the Gaza War

The EU's 7.4 billion euro aid package is intellectual dishonesty

Intellectual dishonesty, according to Wikipedia, is dishonesty in thought or communication. This includes advocating for a viewpoint that one knows to be false or misleading, or advocating for something whose veracity one has not bothered to ascertain, or omitting relevant facts that one knows to be essential.

According to the same source, rhetoric is intellectual dishonesty when it is used to reinforce one's own agenda or important beliefs despite evidence to the contrary. This comes to mind repeatedly when I read news related to humanitarian immigration.

Today, it happened when I came across a headline stating, "EU will soon pay Egypt to contain the migration flood – concern over two borders." These borders are the borders with Sudan and Libya, through which people travel through Egypt towards Europe.

Behind this are the human rights treaties signed by European countries, according to which all people in the world have the right to seek asylum if they manage to reach the border. If and when this happens, asylum must be granted whenever there is no evidence of its undesirability.

And that's not all, because after granting asylum, the receiving country must provide various services to the arrivals, from maintenance to healthcare. Instead, they are not obligated to undertake specific duties themselves, such as financing their own lives through work or adopting the language and culture of the receiving country.

In other words, through the international agreements they have signed and their practical measures towards asylum seekers, EU countries have done everything they can to make themselves as attractive as possible to developing country migrants seeking a better standard of living. And at the same time, they intellectually dishonestly spend money to ensure that these people could not present their asylum applications.

Otherwise, this wouldn't matter much, but bribery of transit countries to keep borders closed is costly (in Egypt's case, €7.4 billion by the end of 2027), there are still plenty of arrivals despite the bribery, and they cause exorbitant costs in their destination countries. And most importantly, the intellectually dishonest Union could change its immigration policy by its own decision, so that it would not attract economically motivated migrants who are unable to adapt to society.

Key points here could be 1) transferring the burden of proving the need for asylum to the applicant, 2) limiting positive decisions to those who have personally experienced persecution (and not, for example, due to general chaos in the country of origin), and 3) making maintenance contingent on work, learning the language and culture of the receiving country, and giving up harmful aspects of previous lifestyles. Additionally, it should be ensured that applicants with rejected decisions are either returned to their home country or isolated from the receiving society in other ways.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Strong statement or intellectual dishonesty in COP27?
Most useless organisations of our time
Should forbidden questions be answered or not?

Christmas gift to the Holy Land

In the Christian - and nowadays, even among more secular Western people - Christmas emphasizes events over 2,000 years ago in the current territory of Israel, as well as the giving of gifts in commemoration of those events. That's why this Christmas, I want to remember the residents of the so-called Holy Land with a proposal for achieving lasting peace between them.

A new solution is needed for two reasons. The first is the nature of Israel as a Jewish state, and the second is the terrorist violence carried out by the Palestinian population who made a colossal mistake in the events of 1948-49 by following the proposal by other Arabs to leave their homes. Both have hindered the establishment of peace between the inhabitants of the Holy Land.

Therefore, a solution must be sought based on maintaining the nature of Israel as a Jewish state while putting an end to the terrorist activities of the Palestinian population. These conditions are not met by the widely discussed two-state model, and particularly, Jews are not interested in a single-state model where Palestinians who engage in terrorism year after year would be granted Israeli citizenship.

In this situation, creative thinking is needed. However, first, we must wait for the end of the ongoing war so that the biggest obstacle to peace, the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas, is removed from the stage.

Afterward, there should be a negotiation table with representation from Jews and Palestinians living in Israel, as well as Jordan, Egypt, and potentially other Arab countries, along with impartial mediators. The result must be an acceptable solution, offering Palestinians the freedom to either move away from Israel to Jordan, Egypt, or other Arab nations, or alternatively, to await Israeli citizenship.

Palestinians relocating to Arab countries should be granted citizenship, for example, five years after settling in the country, provided they meet the conditions and behave appropriately. Those choosing to live in Israel would initially remain without citizenship, but it would generally be granted to them after 30 years. 

That is primarily because renouncing Palestinian terrorism would be a precondition for citizenship. Since achieving this is unlikely to happen overnight, a framework encouraging the abandonment of violence must be established.

Therefore, it should be decided that for each act of Palestinian terrorism within the first year of the agreement, the granting of citizenship would be postponed by one week. Similarly, from the second to the tenth year of the agreement, each act of terrorism would delay citizenship by one month. After that, for the next ten years, each act of terrorism would postpone citizenship by one year, and from then on, by five years.

Such a system would provide Palestinians with a way out of the current deadlock and strong motivation to refrain from terrorist acts. As violence diminishes, trust between Israeli Jews and Palestinians would gradually grow, leading to increasing economic integration over the years, which would further strengthen the peaceful development.

* * *

In the proposal I outlined earlier, it is crucial that the timeframe is long, at least 30 years. Presumably, a considerable number of Palestinians would not choose to wait in Israel for such an extended period and would instead opt for relocation to an Arab country, where obtaining full citizenship rights could happen in a substantially shorter time. This way, the character of Israel as a Jewish state would not be compromised, even if the remaining Palestinians were granted citizenship.

The extended timeframe is also essential because over three decades, an entirely new generation of Palestinians and Jews would grow up, whose lives would not be overshadowed by continuous violence and oppression but rather characterized by peaceful coexistence. This would lead to a decrease in the significance of ethnic and religious boundaries, strengthening society and ultimately creating a situation where the granting of citizenship to Palestinians would not provoke insurmountable reactions among Jews.

And thus, peace would eventually arrive at the birthplace of Christian Christmas! For the people living there, peace and goodwill toward each other would prevail.

With this proposal, I wish all my readers a Merry Christmas! I also extend my wishes to the residents of the Holy Land, hoping that my gift brings them peace!

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Merry Christmas!
Nauttikaa joulusta! (in Finnish, but readable in English using e.g. Google translator)
Joulumuisto (in Finnish, but readablein English using e.g. Google translator)

A new Government for Israel, but why doesn´t it solve anything?

Benjamin Netanyahu became the Prime Minister of the 37th Government of Israel. However, looking back in history, there is no reason to believe that his cabinet would stand long. After all, the new Government is already the third in 2020´s. 

One of the reasons for short Governments in Israel might be its high number of parties. After the last elections the Parliament - Knesset - consists of ten parties. Therefore the only possible type of a majority Government is a coalition, where parties contradicting political views must be settled to a common program.

That is not, however, very different from Finland, where we have nine parties and a representative of autonomous island, Åland, in the Parliament. Therefore, also our Governments are coalitions, but last typically throughout the four years between elections. 

So what is the difference between Israel and Finland? Is it the big number of religion-based movements in Israel, whereas in Finland the only religion-based party has only five seats out of the 200?

As we all know, religions have separated people throughout the history, and formed at least part of the motivation in countless number of wars. Or is it the fact, that Israel is surrounded by hostile nations, that cause pressure on the Jewish state? 

It is, however, true that also Finland has a hostile neighbor, as the war in Ukraine has demonstrated. And therefore foreign policy unites Finnish political parties almost throughout the political spectrum. And that policy is also supported by a clear majority of ordinary people: for example a total of 79 percent of Finns support the NATO application currently in progress.

In contrast, there is an ongoing struggle in Israel policy towards Arabic nations and Palestinians. The previous Government supported a two-state solution whereas Netanyahu stands for an Israel including also the West Bank traditionally inhabited by Palestinians. 

Naturally I am not the right person to tell Israeli what to do - they must decide themselves. But according to my view the eternal conflict between Jews and Arabs in near east looks like a problem caused by two nations, neither of which has common sense for solutions. 

The solution could be somehow copied from post-world-war Finland. We then accepted that Karelia was lost forever, and - instead of looking for impossible revenge - started a fruitful collaboration with Soviet Union by taking advantage on trade with our big and potentially dangerous neighbor. But at the same time kept our military readiness high. 

Such a model would have two scenarios in the Holy Land. For Palestinians: stop dreaming about pushing Jews to the Mediterranean sea, stop the violence caused by your own trouble makers (calling themselves freedom fighters) and look for fair economic collaboration with Israel. That could be done equally well as a part of Israel or as an independent Palestine. Army would not be needed or - in the case of an independent Palestine in the West Bank -  its strength could be relatively low via a security agreement (guarantee) to be negotiated with Israel.  

For Jews the situation would be more complicated. They should naturally offer acceptable rights to Palestinians including equality against the law, and also promote economic collaboration with the neighboring Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. But also demand that the three last ones agree on peace agreement in a similar way as Egypt has done. 

And in all cases, Israel should definitely keep its unquestionable military superiority compared to the Islamic world. 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:

Explanation of Finnish attitudes towards Israeli and Palestinians
Historical failure on an issue related to a Finnish beer
Kuun tavoittelu taivaalta on johtanut palestiinalaiset ahdinkoon

Strong statement or intellectual dishonesty in COP27?

A historical decision was made in COP27 meeting in Egypt. According to that, wealthy countries will pay for developing ones from damages attributable to the climatic change, which is considered to happen due to the wealthy nations.

The decision was made, and I can only accept it. I would, however, like to hear if developing countries are willing to give up those modern things, which were created along the development that led to the compensations decided. That is: vehicles, flights, internet, phones, electricity etc... 

I think that would be a great sign of their willingness to refuse from such a negative developments, that their innovators are expected to pay for their existence. In others words, staying in each nation´s own innovations would make a strong statement on their willingness to stick in a sustainable way of life. 

If no one shows any willingness to give up those harmful innovations, I am afraid that the decision of compensation made in the COP27 meeting looks like intellectual dishonesty and only a new way to transfer money from north to south. Which may or may not be well justified due to some other reasons. 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
China is betting on scientific excellence
They want to wipe out from Finland what is good for Africa
World Resources Institute had an arrogant demand

Advice to participants of the COP27 climate implementation summit

The climate implementation summit COP27 is starting tomorrow in Egypt. I just want to remind - or advice - its participants on two facts. 

The first one has to do with the climatic change and its scientific basis itself. To do that, I remind that the mathematical models predicting a climate crisis have one clear output: that is, the arctic north of the globe will warm up more quickly than the rest of the world. 

According to that, the area of arctic sea ice can be expected to melt in an accelerating rate. However, the minimum size of the ice was observed already in 2012 - that is ten years ago - and right now its size is largest in relation to time (November 4th) since 2015. Obviously, the arctic north is not warming right now. 

So, before major decisions to restrict people´s life, I would like to see a scientific explanation - compatible to the current climate models - for these observations. Or alternatively, a new model, that predicts a hiatus for the warming of the arctic north right now.  

Second, the threat caused by the climatic change is caused by an increasing concentration of greenhouse gases in atmosphere due to the use of fossilized carbon sources. Therefore, if any action will be decided to stop the warming, we should rather focus on giving up on the use of fossilized carbon than to concentrate on carbon sinks, which will halt the global economy and almost certainly be used by world leaders only to lengthen the fossil-based era. 

With these two facts I wish to the participants of COP27 good luck in finding sensible decisions that - at the same time - reduce the risk of intolerable global warming and allow better life for all people in the world. 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Fair policy will build a strong Union
Heat wave in Europe contrasts with the coldness of the Arctic sea
G-index challenges the theory of the global climatic change