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

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?

Finland May Recognize Palestine as an Independent State

Prime Minister Petteri Orpo (NCP) stated today that Finland is ready to recognize an independent Palestine under certain conditions. First of all, the two-state solution must meet both the security needs of Israelis and Palestinians, as well as Palestine’s aspirations for statehood and self-determination. Palestine’s commitment to peaceful coexistence is a central prerequisite for recognition.

In concrete terms, according to Orpo, this means that Hamas or any other group aiming to destroy Israel can have no role in Palestine’s governance or in building its future. It means that Finland will not recognize Palestinian independence unless Palestine is committed to releasing Hamas’s hostages, disarming Hamas, and demilitarizing the Palestinian state. In addition, Palestine must advance its own political reforms.

It remains to be seen when the Palestinians will meet the conditions set by Finland — and by what means Finns will be convinced that recognition is timely. I won’t be holding my breath.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Palestine’s Statehood and International Law
When Should the Independence of Palestine Be Recognized?
When Should We Recognize the Independence of Palestine?

Palestine’s Statehood and International Law

Many European states have recognized or are in the process of recognizing the State of Palestine. Finland is not among these countries but is instead waiting to see how the situation develops, together with, among others, the USA, Italy, Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, Austria, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

This is reasonable in the sense that, from the perspective of international law, the existence of a state requires four basic elements – a permanent population, clearly defined borders, a functioning government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Of these conditions, especially the second, third, and fourth are not met, so a rational person would sooner question the logic of the states that have recognized Palestine than that of the states that have chosen to wait.

Therefore, Palestine should be recognized as a state only when – or if – it one day fulfills all four conditions. In the meantime, every country – regardless of its stance on recognizing Palestine – can act in support of a just peace between Jews and Arabs living in the region.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
When Should the Independence of Palestine Be Recognized?
An Unexpected Endorsement of Professor’s Views
Abu Obaida’s Death Brings Palestine One Step Closer to Peace

When Should the Independence of Palestine Be Recognized?

Many states have recognized the State of Palestine. In other words, they have recognized something that does not even exist.

Finland is not, at least for the time being, part of this group. But now the entire Finnish green-left – the Social Democratic Party, the Greens, and the Left Alliance – have demanded that Finland’s government recognize the State of Palestine. In other words – I repeat – recognize something that does not even exist.

President of Finland Alexander Stubb has left this matter to the government and parliament, meaning he has promised to sign the recognition if such a proposal is placed on his desk. It has not yet been presented, but according to Prime Minister Petteri Orpo, “the government is still processing the matter, but our main policy, as decided in the foreign and security policy report, is that we promote the two-state solution.”

In practice, the government is unlikely to make such a proposal to the President, since its other main party, the Finns Party, as well as its smallest party, the Christian Democrats, oppose recognition. The President has also acknowledged this, saying: “Somehow I don’t believe I will receive this proposal before the UN meeting next week.

* * *

For my part, I state that if a new independent state is created in Palestine, I am ready to support its recognition immediately. On the other hand, I do not wish under any circumstances to recognize something that does not even exist.

In this, I follow the model set by Western countries over a hundred years ago – including Germany, which was at war with them – who decided after Finland declared independence in 1917 that recognition would not come until Soviet Russia itself recognized the new state. This led the ruling Senate of Finland to turn to Lenin’s Council of People’s Commissars.

After various stages, Lenin then acknowledged the facts as they were and recognized Finland’s independence. After that, Western nations followed suit one by one, and there has been no ambiguity about Finland’s independence since, even though the Soviet Union tried to occupy the country during World War II – on two separate occasions.

This is the same model I am prepared to recommend for the recognition of Palestine. That is, let the Palestinians lay down their arms, make peace with Israel, and agree on the conditions under which an entity made up of the West Bank and Gaza could achieve independence. And let Finland, in that context, acknowledge the reality – and grant recognition to the new state only then.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Why Did Finland Remain an Independent Democracy After World War II?
When Should We Recognize the Independence of Palestine?
Palestinian Youth Require More Understanding, Less Aggression

An Unexpected Endorsement of Professor’s Views

I have occasionally observed (example, another, third) that the greatest problem of the Palestinians in the Holy Land has been their historical aspiration to first annihilate the Jews who settled there, as well as their inability to accept the facts that have taken place. In practice, the reason for their misery therefore lies with their leaders and the terrorist organizations—foremost among them Hamas—whose actions have prevented, and continue to prevent, the emergence of a peaceful solution in Gaza and the achievement of peace throughout the region.

That is why it was interesting to note that Mosab Hassan Yousef, the son of Hamas’s founder Hassan Yousef, has stated that Gaza no longer exists, and that the thanks for this go to Hamas, which has used residential buildings in the area as ammunition depots. He has also called Hamas a cult of death and described how the terrorists even use their own children as human shields.

It is good to see that my view on the causes of Palestinian suffering received support from such an unexpected source. However, it is not surprising, because when recognizing the facts and thinking logically, it is self-evident—something that can only be overlooked by an observer’s inability to free themselves from their own prejudices.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The Cost of the East Jerusalem Attack for Palestinians — and Its Echo Worldwide
Abu Obaida’s Death Brings Palestine One Step Closer to Peace
Will Gaza Get a Ceasefire, or Will Hamas Hold On to Its Terrorist Capabilities?

Abu Obaida’s Death Brings Palestine One Step Closer to Peace

According to recent reports, Israel has once again taken the life of a senior Hamas member. The person in question is Abu Obaida, who was one of the key figures of the al-Qassam Brigades and served as its spokesperson.

Thus, peace in Palestine is once again one step closer. Unfortunately, especially from the Palestinian perspective, progress of this kind is unfolding painfully slowly.

This is why it would be important for Palestinian civilians themselves to report the whereabouts of Hamas terrorists to the Israeli army, so that obstacles to peace could be removed at a faster pace. Sadly, however, it seems unlikely that this will happen—at least not on a broad scale. Therefore, an end to the suffering of Palestinian civilians cannot be expected any time soon.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Will Gaza Get a Ceasefire, or Will Hamas Hold On to Its Terrorist Capabilities?
Hamas at a Crossroads: Are Weapons More Important Than Gaza Belonging to the Palestinians?
Hamas Continues the Suffering of Gaza's Civilians

Deep Roots of Violence and Disregard for Human Dignity in History

As we all know, wars and battles have always been an essential part of human communities. Today, examples can easily be found in Ukraine, Palestine, and Sudan.

That is why it was particularly interesting to come across a French study analyzing skeletons from northeastern France dating to around 4300–4150 BCE—that is, the remains of people who lived more than 6,000 years ago.

Many of the skeletons showed unhealed injuries as well as skeletal segments of severed left upper limbs. They were therefore most likely the result of excessive violence, mutilation, and/or trophy-taking associated with ancient warfare.

In their work, the researchers reported a multi-isotope reconstruction, based on the bones, of the life histories of individuals defined as “victims” and of other deceased individuals from the same region who had received customary funerary treatment. In total, 82 humans were analyzed, together with 53 animals and 35 modern plants to establish regional isotope baselines.

The results revealed statistically significant isotopic differences between the victims and the nonvictims, which were interpreted as showing that the victims had belonged to invading groups or tribes that were defeated in battles against the local population. They were then brutally killed and deposited in pits—together with trophies in the form of severed upper limbs.

The study thus demonstrated that, more than 6,000 years ago, after a battle had been decided, the victors celebrated their triumph with acts of violence and disregard for human dignity. And this practice has not disappeared even today, as examples of Russian war crimes in Ukraine and the atrocities of fighting groups in Sudan sadly show—not to mention the events of October 7, 2023 in Israel.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Dark Brown Ancestors
Football-Associated Violence Is a Personality Problem
Russian army not comparable to western military services

Palestine Action Suomi - a Bona Fide Actor or False Flag Organization?

In Finland, there is an activist group called Palestine Action Suomi. Previously, it has terrorized, at least, the buildings of Finland’s Ministry of Defence, Allianz Trade Suomi and the Nammo company by defacing their entrances with red paint. Now the group has also targeted the entrance of the Patria company with paint.

Frankly, I find myself puzzled by the motives behind this group’s activities. Most clearly, they seem to amount to supporting the terrorism practiced by Hamas, since the group’s own actions are criminal and— as I noted at the outset— amount to terrorizing Finnish companies.

In a sense, this is logical, because the Palestinians’ own plight is largely due to terrorism as well. I am thinking in particular of the fact that after the long-time Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat rejected in 2000 an already-agreed treaty on establishing a Palestinian state comprising the West Bank and Gaza, rocket and other terrorist attacks resumed from Palestinian territories into Israel— culminating in the October 7, 2023 attack that ignited the current war.

* * *

Palestine Action Suomi claims to be advocating for the Palestinian cause, but I really wonder how they think their actions could increase support for that cause among Finns. Wouldn’t their vandalistic attacks on Finnish companies rather decrease it?

Of course, it could be a so-called false flag group, whose real purpose is not to promote Palestinian support but instead to work on behalf of Israel. In that case, Palestine Action Finland would only pretend to champion the Palestinian cause, while in reality seeking to damage the public image of the Palestinians and their supporters.

If that were the case, however, one would expect ordinary people who are positively inclined toward the Palestinians to expose such a false flag operation. Since I have not noticed that happening, I suppose I must also conclude that this is simply a pro-Palestinian group resorting to senseless methods.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
When Demands Become Damage
Organized Vandalism in Helsinki, Finland
Gambling Addiction and the Shadowy Instigator

Will Gaza Get a Ceasefire, or Will Hamas Hold On to Its Terrorist Capabilities?

Hamas had already announced earlier that it was ready for a ceasefire in the Gaza war. According to the Islamic Jihad organization, it would be prepared to release ten Israeli hostages alive, as well as the bodies of deceased individuals.

Israel took longer to respond to the ceasefire proposal. According to today’s report, it too is ready for a ceasefire in Gaza, but only on the condition that Hamas releases all the remaining 49 hostages.

In other words, Israel shifted the decision on the ceasefire back to Hamas, which in turn must consider its own position regarding the demand of the Jewish state. The central question is whether the terrorist organization will agree to relinquish its only effective means of pressure against Israel in order to initiate the peace process in Gaza.

For Hamas and the residents of Gaza, the situation is extremely difficult, as the latter are suffering disproportionately from the terrorists’ determination to preserve their armed forces—which, though militarily insignificant, are sufficient for the purposes of terrorism—in this situation. Hamas’s leadership is also under pressure from Israel, which more than a week ago declared that it was preparing for a new ground offensive aimed at destroying the remainder of Hamas’s underground facilities.

For these reasons, I greatly fear that the residents of Gaza will still not be able to enjoy peace, as Hamas’s leadership will once again put its own survival ahead of an ordinary, livable life for the people. But since nothing has yet been decided, we can still hope that reason will prevail, that peace will finally come to Gaza, and that Hamas will either be dismantled or at least lose its significance as a major player in the Middle East.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland Denies Blanket Asylum for Gazans, Confirms Tighter Immigration Policies
New Framework for Post-Hamas Gaza
Hamas at a Crossroads: Are Weapons More Important Than Gaza Belonging to the Palestinians?

New Framework for Post-Hamas Gaza

Israel’s Security Cabinet has announced that it will take control of Gaza and destroy the terrorist organization Hamas, which previously ruled the area. Additionally, it has outlined five principles to be applied in the region.

These principles include the disarmament of Hamas, the release of hostages, the demilitarization of the Gaza Strip, Israeli security oversight in Gaza, and the establishment of an entirely new Arab civil administration. The final decision on implementing these principles will be made by Prime Minister Netanyahu’s full cabinet, which is set to convene no earlier than Sunday.

To carry out this plan, Israel has repositioned its troops near the Gaza border in formations suggesting the beginning of a new large-scale ground offensive. It remains to be seen whether the war, sparked by Hamas’s terrorist attack on October 7, 2023, is now moving into a phase that could lead to a peaceful resolution.

* * *

At first glance, the plan raises many questions. It is certain that Hamas fighters will do everything they can to avoid capture—potentially even by using human shields. At the same time, they will undoubtedly seek to prevent the release of hostages.

I also approach with great skepticism the idea that an entirely new Arab administration could be established in Gaza without any involvement from previous powerholders. And even if such an administration were created, could it build enough military strength to prevent Hamas from resurging? One problem could be that such a government would likely be seen as an Israeli puppet regime, making it difficult to gain the trust of the local population—many of whom have traditionally supported Hamas.

On the other hand, any attempt to end the war in Gaza—and to achieve long-term, sustainable peace—is undoubtedly welcome from both the Palestinian Arab and Jewish perspectives. That is why I hope the proposed plan can materialize into an authority that wields real power in the region and succeeds in suppressing the terrorism that has taken root there for decades.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Hamas Continues the Suffering of Gaza's Civilians
A Night at the Opera
When Demands Become Damage

Hamas Continues the Suffering of Gaza's Civilians

The terrorist organization Hamas, which governed the Gaza Strip before the current ongoing war, has issued a response to the latest ceasefire proposal for Gaza. Unfortunately, the response was not positive; instead, the organization has demanded additional conditions related to the delivery of aid shipments, the withdrawal of Israeli forces, and security guarantees for a lasting ceasefire.

The most recent ceasefire negotiations between Israel and Hamas have lasted for over two weeks, with no significant breakthroughs. In other words, Hamas still does not appear willing to lay down its arms to relieve the people of Gaza from the suffering caused by the war. 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
A Night at the Opera. 
Precedent from France Opens EU Pathway for Gaza Palestinians
Activism Without Truth

A Night at the Opera

At the London opera, one performer decided to stage a protest. It involved bringing a Palestinian flag onto the stage and holding it up for the audience to see.

This demonstration had no impact whatsoever on the situation of Palestinians in their homeland, nor did it bring peace between Jews and Arabs in Palestine. It also did not undo the reasons why the Israeli army — in its search for Hamas terrorists — has extensively destroyed buildings in Gaza.

Instead, the performer in question demonstrated a lack of respect for his employer, the art form he practices, and his audience. Nevertheless, it is quite possible that he found satisfaction in getting his moment in the spotlight — at the opera, in London, in Britain, and in the global media. And even in this blog.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finnish Branch of Extinction Rebellion Faces Possible Ban 
In Finland, the Enemy Is Clear – and Now the Truth Is Emerging for the Palestinians Too
Does Germany’s Ban on Arabic-Language Posters Signal a CDU/CSU-AfD Coalition?

When Demands Become Damage

Yesterday I wrote that the demands of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad in particular might prevent peace from being achieved in Gaza. However, according to recent news, it may in fact be Hamas’s far more limited demands that are already doing so.

At the same time, Israel has continued its military operations in the area, causing immense suffering to Palestinian civilians. This raises the question: whose interests are the aforementioned Palestinian organizations actually serving? Their own—or those of ordinary civilians in Gaza?

The answer is not difficult to find, provided one is able to put the facts in order. The first fact is that neither Hamas nor any other Palestinian organization is capable of challenging the Israeli military. The second is that, for this reason, their attempts to present demands to Israel are unequivocally harmful from the perspective of Palestinian civilians.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Will Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s Demand Block Peace in Gaza?
UN Security Council Resolution Draft Risks Encouraging Terrorism
How Hamas Exploited Aid and Lost the Support of Many Palestinians

Some University of Helsinki Employees Demand End to Collaboration With Israeli Universities

Some University of Helsinki employees have, quite evidently, lost their minds. I arrived at this conclusion because over 700 of its employees are demanding that Finland’s largest university end its cooperation with Israeli universities.

Behind the petition is an organization called Researchers for Palestine, which I had never heard of before. They describe themselves as "a group of staff and researchers based at the University of Helsinki who are committed to pushing for an academic boycott of Israeli educational institutions, in line with BDS and PACBI guidelines."

Among the signatories, there appear to be mainly ethnically Finnish representatives of the social sciences, but with a quick glance I also found, for example, two people named Muhammad, a few named Ahmed or Ahmad, and several variations of Hassan, as well as some non-Finnish European names.

In fact, 700 is not a particularly large number, considering that the University of Helsinki employs approximately 7,800 people. So, less than 10 percent of the staff have signed the petition—unfortunately, I personally know a few of them.

Naturally, such a petition has no actual impact on inter-university relations, nor should it. If for no other reason, then because research is inherently something that connects people rather than separates them—and it is such a long-term endeavor that temporary political disagreements should not be allowed to influence it.

Nevertheless, I offer a suggestion to all the petition’s signatories: “No force in the world can stop you from ending your own cooperation with Israeli universities and researchers. Therefore, you are entirely free to set an example for others and return any funding you may have received for such cooperation.”

However, if you don’t personally have any such cooperation, then I view your demand as rather ridiculous. It seems to be a clear case of virtue signaling on matters that require no personal sacrifice from you, but would demand that others break their commitments. That is simply spineless.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
University of Helsinki gained an anti-Semitic reputation
Demonstrations cause trouble in Helsinki and Sweden
International Master´s degree is an opportunity to be used

António Guterres, You Won’t Stop Russia – But Mines Might

UN Secretary-General António Guterres made an appeal to countries planning to withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty and reintroduce anti-personnel landmines. Among these countries, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Finland are neighbors of Russia.

Their departure from the treaty is justified precisely by this geographical fact — and by the fact that Russia is an aggressive and imperialist great power that has invaded the territory of several of its neighbors. There is no doubt that its current regime might also decide to test the security guarantees NATO has given to these countries — once it is done with Ukraine.

That is why it is fair to ask Mr. Guterres how he intends to prevent Russia’s intentions, should it decide to attack, for example, my own homeland. And whether, in such a situation, he would take responsibility for the Finnish lives that would have been saved by effective mining.

I do not expect an answer from the UN Secretary-General, but I remind him that Finland once sought help — in vain — from the UN’s predecessor, the League of Nations, before the Winter War that began in 1939. No help came then, and I do not believe Guterres would be able to provide any in the 2020s either, should Russia’s Putin choose to repeat Stalin’s move and order his army to seize Helsinki and strip Finland of its independence.

For this reason, I believe the UN Secretary-General would do well to keep quiet about the affairs of Eastern Europe, and instead focus on achieving a just peace in Ukraine, resolving the conflict between Jews and Arabs in Palestine, and ensuring that Iran does not continue its nuclear weapons program after its war with Israel comes to an end.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Putin's Threat Bolsters European Border States' Defense Against Russia
Highlights of the BRICS Meeting in Kazan, Russia
United Nations, corruption and terrorism

UN Security Council Resolution Draft Risks Encouraging Terrorism

The United States has used its veto power to block the adoption of a UN Security Council resolution demanding an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza. It justified its use of the veto by arguing that the draft resolution was not linked to the release of Israeli hostages.

The resolution also failed to meet two other U.S. demands. The United States had wanted the resolution to condemn the October 2023 attack on Israel by the extremist group Hamas, which started the war. The bloody assault claimed the lives of over a thousand people. The draft resolution also lacked the U.S.-requested clause stating that Hamas should be disarmed and withdraw from Gaza.

In fact, I find it strange that the Security Council even attempted to draft a resolution that would leave hostages in the hands of terrorists and not even require their disarmament. And that is why I question the attitude of other Security Council members toward the war in Gaza.

Moreover, it is logically indisputable that the proposal as presented would, globally, encourage the use of terrorism to advance various political causes, while failing to offer—even in theory—a credible solution to enable coexistence between Israelis and Palestinian Arabs.

Such a resolution may well reflect current political realities, but its outcome would clearly not lead to lasting peace—neither for the Jews nor the Arabs of the region. And for that reason, pursuing such a resolution cannot be considered a legitimate goal of international political will.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
How Hamas Exploited Aid and Lost the Support of Many Palestinians
Finnish International Law Experts Viewed as Political Influencers by Peers
Polish Minister for Foreign Affairs reminded Russians about their nightmare

When Should We Recognize the Independence of Palestine?

According to a recent opinion poll, 44 percent of Finns would like to recognize the State of Palestine. This group consists mainly of voters from the Left Alliance, the Greens, and the Social Democrats. On the other hand, on the political right, supporters of the National Coalition Party and the Finns Party are more opposed to the idea than others.

There are hardly any differences between age groups, but women are more inclined than men to support the establishment of a new state in the Middle East—despite the fact that women’s rights would likely not be realized there. Finland’s President Alexander Stubb, for his part, has stated that Finland should also recognize Palestine if the United Kingdom, France, or other major countries do so.

* * *

All of this reminded me of Finland’s own independence from Russian rule. The Declaration of Independence was approved by the Finnish Parliament on December 6, 1917, shortly after the October Revolution.

After that, Finland began seeking support for its independence from Western countries, but they were unwilling to recognize it. Support was first sought from Germany, which initially promised to raise the matter in the peace negotiations with Russia in Brest-Litovsk. However, this did not happen; instead, the Germans said they would wait for Soviet Russia to recognize the new state first.

Consequently, the Finnish government sent a request for recognition of independence to Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany, France, and Britain. Recognition was not requested from Russia, as it was thought that it would be more inclined to approve the matter once the Western powers had already done so.

This hope turned out to be in vain, as the Western countries urged the Prime Minister to turn to the Bolshevik government of Russia, led by Lenin. The Finnish Prime Minister, however, was reluctant to do so, as he did not want to acknowledge the Bolsheviks as the legitimate rulers of Russia.

Eventually, on December 22, the Finnish Parliament decided to seek recognition not from the Bolshevik government, but from the Russian Constituent Assembly, which was expected to convene soon and where the majority was made up of Russia’s more moderate left-wing parties. Germany, however, intervened and pressured the Finnish government to approach Lenin’s Council of People's Commissars instead.

This is what happened, and Lenin did recognize Finland’s independence. He did so because he believed that supporting the right of national minorities to secede would further the Bolsheviks’ main goal—the spread of the socialist revolution. In his view, the separation should only be temporary, as he assumed that the small nations breaking away from Russia would later voluntarily rejoin either the Russian socialist federation or a broader worldwide Soviet union.

* * *

As for myself, when it comes to recognizing Palestinian independence, I believe the time is not yet right. After all, there isn’t even a theoretically independent Arab state in the Holy Land that would meet the criteria for statehood.

However, I would be ready to recognize Palestine immediately after Israel does. In other words, I would act in the same way that the Western countries did when they eventually recognized Finland’s independence.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Gambling Addiction and the Shadowy Instigator
The Complete Demilitarization of Gaza: What Would It Mean for the Palestinians?
Independence day of Finland now and 83 years ago

Gambling Addiction and the Shadowy Instigator

Probably every one of us knows what a compulsive gambler is like. A person who plays games of chance, losing again and again. Yet they imagine that luck might turn if they just play one more round — or two — and that they might win back the money they've lost.

This came to mind when I read the news that Israel announced the establishment of 22 new settlements in the West Bank. And the country’s defense minister even spoke of turning the area into a Jewish state.

And no, I didn’t mean that Israel, its defense minister, or the Jewish citizens of the country were the compulsive gamblers in this story — rather, the Palestinian Arabs. In 1947, they would have received about half of what is now the territory of Israel. But this was not acceptable to them, and they decided to take a gamble.

That meant launching a war, with the help of surrounding Arab countries, with the aim of driving the Jews into the sea. As part of that effort, Palestinian Arabs were asked to leave their homes, resulting in a large number of Palestinian refugees who have since been barred from returning to Israeli territory.

In the years that followed, several wars broke out between Israel and Arab states. The plight of the Palestinians was not always the direct cause, but in most cases, it was at least a background factor.

Then came the years 1993–2000, during which the Oslo peace process offered the Palestinians the possibility of an independent state comprising the West Bank and Gaza. However, their leader Yasser Arafat refused to sign the agreement that had been reached — because he wanted borders based on the 1947 plan. And so, once again, he and the Palestinians he led decided to roll the dice and continued down the path of various terrorist acts.

As my esteemed readers know, Palestinian terrorists were especially "successful" in their October 2023 attack, which led to Israel taking control of the Gaza Strip. As a result, Israel recently even threatened to evacuate its entire population.

And now, most recently, came the defense minister’s comment about the West Bank: “we will build the Jewish-Israeli state on the ground.” If that plan goes through, the situation would resemble that of a typical compulsive gambler who has already lost all their money, their spouse has left, the job is gone, and even the house is about to be sold off to pay the debts.

So what the Palestinians do in this situation? Well, like all other compulsive gamblers, they naturally decide to play one more round in a game where they, in reality, have virtually no chance of winning — except in the imagination of the compulsive gambler. 

* * *

Incidentally, perhaps the greatest harm to the Palestinians has been done by Western leftists, Greens, and feminists who have, year after year, supported them ever more fervently. Without this constant encouragement, reason might have prevailed even in the mind of a compulsive gambler.

The massive shows of support may have appeared to Palestinian leaders as signs of hope — that although the fronts keep delivering defeat after defeat, perhaps a power shift in the West might someday bring Western countries to their aid.

And maybe, after enduring all that I’ve described above, they might still hit the jackpot — and drive the Jews into the sea. Isn’t that a possibility to believe in, especially when Palestinian flags and banners with clear slogans like “from the river to the sea” wave ever more prominently on Western university campuses, streets, and squares?

In other words, the pro-Palestinian activity in the West resembles a scene from a Western movie, where the shady backroom figure running the saloon’s card table keeps urging the stranger to stay in the rigged game until he’s lost his last dollar.

Unfortunately for the Palestinians, it seems to be too difficult for the Western left, Greens, and feminists to understand this. And there is no noble hero riding into the saloon to shoot the cheating card shark and the filthy-rich saloon owner.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
How Hamas Exploited Aid and Lost the Support of Many Palestinians
What Would It Take to Make Peace in the Holy Land?
Why Hamas Is Unwilling to Give Up Its Weapons

What Would It Take to Make Peace in the Holy Land?

The President of Finland, Alexander Stubb, wrote the following on social media regarding the situation in Gaza:

"The suffering of civilians in Gaza must end.

Finland calls on Israel to assume its responsibilities under international law and to ensure access for humanitarian aid. The UN and humanitarian aid organizations must be allowed to operate fully and impartially. Humanitarian aid must not be politicised. Forced displacement of populations is a war crime and cannot form part of any solution.

We call on Hamas to release hostages and encourage the parties to return to the ceasefire.

Israel's security must be guaranteed in accordance with international law. Peace negotiations must be started immediately on the basis of a two-state solution."

* * *

I am pleased with the President’s statement because he addressed both sides of the issue. And sadly, this stands in contrast to the remarks of nearly all other politicians who have taken a stance on the matter—especially those directly involved.

If the leaders and influential voices - as well as all ordinary people - within both Jewish and Palestinian communities of the Holy Land were to read Stubb’s comment and abide by it, the problem would be resolved. Unfortunately, I find it hard to believe that this will happen. For the Palestinians, it would mean accepting Israel’s right to its current borders and ensuring that no more rockets are fired from Palestinian territories into Israel, nor any other terrorist acts committed.

For the Jews in the region, it would mean treating Palestinians—whether independent or part of Israel—as equal neighbors, with whom trade and interaction would be conducted as with any other people. Furthermore, it would require ensuring that no one—such as Jewish settlers in the West Bank—is granted any rights to touch Palestinian property, except through fair, voluntary transactions based on mutual agreement.

* * *

Regrettably, I doubt this will come to pass after nearly 80 years - with roots going even much further in history - of hostility. There always seems to be a small group of people who refuse to accept the status quo and take justice into their own hands, especially when they feel they have been wronged.

Of course, the problem described above would be “resolved” if Israel were to carry through with the idea of forcibly displacing the population of Gaza to completion. Or if the Palestinians, by some miracle, succeeded in destroying the Jewish state.

But the reality is that neither of these outcomes would be in accordance with international law, nor would they respect human rights, and therefore they are not justifiable in any way. And that’s why I fear that, despite Stubb’s principle—which, tragically, is disarmingly simple in theory—we are likely to witness another 80 years of hostility in the Holy Land. And the overwhelming majority of both Jews and Palestinians will continue to suffer because of it.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Could Mohammed Sinwar’s Death Mark a Turning Point Toward Peace
Why Hamas Is Unwilling to Give Up Its Weapons
Understanding of Facts is Increasing in the Middle East