Burning a Man Alive Led to Life Imprisonment

One of the consequences of the immigration policies practiced by Western countries has been the emergence of Islamist terrorists in Europe. This naturally means a deterioration in the security situation in the West, but also an increased burden on judicial and prison systems.

This came to my mind while reading a news article stating that a "Swedish man," Osama Krayem, had participated in the murder of a Jordanian pilot in 2014 and has now been sentenced to life imprisonment for war crimes and terrorism. The same man had previously been sentenced to 30 years in prison for the 2015 Paris and 2016 Brussels terrorist attacks.

Osama Krayem grew up in Malmö, the Swedish city most affected by immigration, and became radicalized already as a teenager. When the opportunity arose, he traveled to Syria and joined the terrorist group ISIS.

According to the court proceedings, Osama Krayem led the pilot of the plane shot down by ISIS into a metal cage and guarded it until it was set on fire with the man still alive inside. Thus, the sentence handed down now is undoubtedly well deserved, though it naturally cannot undo what was done.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Activism Without Truth
Western Countries Have Neither a Reason Nor a Need to Accept Asylum Seekers from Syria or Gaza
Three Islamists Arrested in Finland on Suspicion of Belonging to a Terrorist Group

 

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