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

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

Hamas at a Crossroads: Are Weapons More Important Than Gaza Belonging to the Palestinians?

The Haaretz newspaper, published in Tel Aviv, has reported that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has announced his intention to permanently annex parts of Gaza to Israel if Hamas refuses to agree to a ceasefire. According to him, this plan has the support of the U.S. administration under President Donald Trump

The annexation of parts of Gaza is to continue as long as Hamas refuses a ceasefire – or until the entire area has become part of Israel. However, according to Haaretz, which is known for its left-wing and socially liberal stance, Netanyahu’s plan would only lead to more Western countries recognizing the State of Palestine – something France has already announced it is considering. Meanwhile, Netanyahu’s government aims to pressure Hamas into abandoning its armed resistance.

From here in Finland, it is interesting to observe how the situation unfolds. Will Hamas – and its leadership – acknowledge that it has reached a dead end, or will it continue armed resistance, thereby placing the entire population of Gaza in a situation where they permanently lose their homes?

It also remains to be seen what France and its president, Emmanuel Macron, will do if Hamas refuses to lay down its arms and recognize Israel – conditions he has previously stated are prerequisites for recognition. Or will the potential annexation of Gaza areas lead him to forgo even these conditions before recognizing Palestine?

More broadly, I find the entire recognition debate absurd. After all, Palestine does not exist as a state, so its recognition would change the very definition of an independent state. It would therefore be more of a disingenuous political gesture than a serious acknowledgment of a state-level reality.

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

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

Demonstration of one´s own stupidity is a sign of western values

During the recent decades a total of 25 Finns have received a medal for  their friendship with Russia. Basically there is nothing wrong with that taken that Finland and Russia have had excellent relationship before the attack to Ukraine. 

It is, though, interesting to note some reactions on those recognitions after Putin started a genocide in Ukraine. Eero Heinäluoma - social democrat and member of the European Parliament - has discarded the medal into garbage after the Russian attack.

In the other extreme is a historian Matti Klinge. He is a professor, who said in 2013 that Crimea should be a part of Russia, and is proud of his recognition. He also has denied that Latvia was occupied by the Soviet Union. 

Even now he positions himself as a neutral person and stands passive avoiding any demonstrations of opinion. However, he could not be completely silent, but said to the journalist that "Ukraine has been problematic for much longer than now".

He also pointed out that "Russia is Russia, and remains a neighbor and a great power. One should try to think about how they see things. According to opinion polls, the majority of the people support President Putin and his foreign policy. It’s hard to say anything about that."

I must admit, that the views of professor Klinge are not mainstream views in today´s Finland. That is, however, a sign of western values in our country - something that Russians can only dream of. 

That includes a freedom of speech - including demonstrations of one´s own stupidity.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Political rats and useful idiots
Why a journalist was unaware on the number of Stalin´s victims?