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

In Finland, the Enemy Is Clear – and Now the Truth Is Emerging for the Palestinians Too

The Finnish government is proposing an extension to the so-called "pushback law." This law, which closes the border between Finland and Russia, came into effect last July with an almost unanimous decision in Parliament. Extending it once again requires a clear majority in Parliament.

That appears to be happening, as the parties still hold the same positions they did during the original vote that enacted the law. Only the Greens and the Left Alliance oppose the proposal, while the rest understand that Putin must not be given the opportunity to continue his hybrid warfare, which instrumentalizes migrants.

Meanwhile, the Social Democrats—also in opposition—have stated that "ensuring border security is just as relevant as it was a year ago," and they intend to support the government. The Centre Party, also in opposition, will do the same.

It seems that Finland’s eastern border will remain closed until Russia provides credible proof that it will no longer use asylum seekers against Finland. For everyone's sake, it would be best if this happened as soon as possible—the ball is now in Vladimir Putin’s court.

* * *

News has also emerged from the Holy Land. Frustration among Gaza’s residents appears to have reached new heights after Israel resumed bombings a week ago, following a two-month ceasefire.

As a result, Palestinians in Gaza staged a protest on Tuesday against Hamas, which governs the territory. The demonstrators called Hamas members terrorists and demanded an end to the war against Israel.

It appears that many Palestinians have come to realize that their biggest problem is not Israel but Hamas, which continues to wage endless terrorism. However, it remains to be seen whether the protests will grow large enough to force Hamas to surrender, release the hostages, and agree to lay down its arms permanently.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The Complete Demilitarization of Gaza: What Would It Mean for the Palestinians?
Time for Hamas to Accept the Facts
Defending National Security: Finland's Response to Hybrid Warfare

French Election Results: A Deep Dive into Tactical Voting and Its Implications

The second round of the French elections held yesterday has been followed worldwide with great interest because, based on the first round, it was speculated that the immigration-critical National Rally might rise to become the country's largest party and possibly even take on government responsibility.

However, when the results came out, it was clear that this did not happen. Instead, the largest party in parliament became the red-green New Popular Front with 182 seats. The center-right Ensemble pour la République, supported by President Macron, came second, and the National Rally ended up with only 143 seats. Other parties received 68 seats.

What makes the result interesting is something that, at least on their election coverage websites, the national broadcaster Yleisradio as well as private newspapers Ilta-Sanomat and Iltalehti failed to mention.

Namely, in Finnish elections, the percentage distribution of votes usually plays a major role. According to this, the clear winner of the elections was the National Rally with 37.1 percent. The New Popular Front, which grabbed the most seats, received "only" 25.8 percent, and the Ensemble coalition got 24.5 percent of the votes.

In other words, the elections saw a huge discrepancy between the parties' support and the number of parliamentary seats they received. The explanation for this was so-called tactical voting, an unholy alliance where the political center-right and left-green encouraged voters in each constituency to support each other's candidate if the National Rally candidate had a chance of winning.

One can – of course – ask whether true democracy was realized in the Gallic elections.

In this writing, however, I do not aim to answer the question I posed, but I note that it will be extremely difficult for Macron's supporters and the left-green to find common ground on the direction in which France will be governed in the future. And the situation is not helped by the fact that the left-green New Popular Front is very likely to break up during the current parliamentary term.

This might not matter much otherwise, but France's public finances are even more indebted than Finland's. And the country's economy has not grown in a long time. Meanwhile, the number of immigrants is steadily increasing, and as a result, the number of Muslims now stands at about 10 percent of the population.

Therefore, it remains to be seen what will happen in one of the EU's major powers in the upcoming parliamentary term. My guess is that we will see a lot of action and dangerous situations, so to speak, but France's problems will remain unresolved despite this. And this is not good for the EU, the French, or Finland.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Elections in the UK: A Shift Toward Hand-Waving Politics?
A National Rally election victory does not mean that France will become like Finland under the Finns Party
The future of all Europe is at stake