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?

Russian Aircraft Violated Finnish Airspace – But What’s the Point?

The Finnish Ministry of Defence issued a terse statement reporting that a Russian aircraft had violated Finnish airspace. This was by no means the first such incident—something similar occurred most recently in late May.

Such actions are, of course, inherently irrational coming from a state that has entangled itself in a years-long war. If this were to lead to a military confrontation on Finnish territory, it would significantly complicate Russia’s position in Ukraine, as part of its armed forces would have to be redirected to a new front.

However, there appears to be little risk of that happening. The Russians seem to trust that Finland will handle the matter through diplomatic channels. In this case, that meant summoning the Russian ambassador to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland, where he was given a message to take back to Moscow.

I find it difficult to understand Russia’s behavior in the Baltic region, as it yields no visible benefits. Not even testing the readiness of Finland’s air force qualifies, since the Russians have seen that many times before.

Therefore, the reasons are likely to be found in Russia’s domestic politics. Perhaps this kind of low-risk saber-rattling offers the Kremlin a sense of satisfaction—or even a narrative to present to ordinary Russians worn down by the war in Ukraine.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Did a Finnish Fighter Jet Rush to Intercept a Russian Sukhoi Yesterday?
The Downing of the Azerbaijani Plane Is a War Crime That Must Be Condemned
Finns - Among the World’s Best

Expert Statement Highlights Russian Hybrid Threat Over Migration Across the Mediterranean

The European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats (Hybrid CoE) has issued a warning about the threat of instrumentalised migration. According to the Centre, "large-scale instrumentalised migration could cause significant problems for Finland's societal peace, as well as public order and security, potentially impairing crisis decision-making and operational capabilities."

The Centre also noted that "it is possible that by exploiting disinformation arising from such a situation, solidarity towards Finland within Europe could be significantly diminished. Should such a hybrid campaign become highly effective, it may pave the way for some unexpected political and military arrangements."

The Centre drew attention to the fact that “unauthorised crossing of Finland’s eastern land border is considerably easier and safer than the hundreds of kilometres of sea travel across the Mediterranean. Therefore, Finland may face even greater pressure than what has traditionally been seen at the Mediterranean. This vulnerability is of a permanent nature, and Russia can exploit this mechanism with minimal effort.”

A representative of the Hybrid CoE also pointed out the EU Commission's stance, which states that "to safeguard the security of the Union and the territorial integrity of its member states, it is essential that member states bordering Russia and Belarus can act decisively and firmly to effectively control the Union’s external borders. Consequently, member states may need to make exceptions to EU regulations if instrumentalised migration threatens the public order, internal security, or national security of the Union and its member states."

* * *

This expert statement was issued in connection with the plans to extend Finland's border security law concerning the eastern frontier. Originally passed as a one-year measure in the summer of 2024, the law sparked intense debate, particularly among the political green-left. As a result, six Social Democrats, one Swedish People's Party representative, and the entire parliamentary groups of the Greens and the Left Alliance voted against it. Despite the objections from MPs who, in effect, aligned themselves with Russia’s position, the law passed in Parliament with the necessary majority: 167 votes to 31.

This spring, the political left has once again voiced pro-Moscow criticism regarding the extension of the border law (one, two, three examples). That is why it is important that the expert statement referenced above not only addressed the actual threats but also clearly highlighted the European Commission’s position, which justifies deviation from EU regulations in cases of instrumentalised migration.

Indeed, it would be an utterly untenable situation if the EU or any of its member states were unable to defend themselves against hostile threats from the East simply because they clung to regulatory frameworks, regardless of the consequences. One would hope this point would be heard—and more importantly, understood—even by the political green-left, though that may be a vain hope.

In the coming weeks, we shall see what kind of spectacle unfolds in the Finnish Parliament and the media as the border security law is revisited. However, it already seems clear that this is nothing more than political theatre, as there are ultimately too few MPs willing to act as Putin’s advocates by opposing Finland’s security interests and reopening the country’s borders to hybrid operations. Still, it is helpful that they reveal themselves so openly.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Be Ready: Russia May Launch Another "Special Operation"
Human Rights Judge Pauliine Koskelo Questions Asylum Interpretation That Ignores the Threat of Hybrid Warfare
Defending National Security: Finland's Response to Hybrid Warfare

Freedom of Speech in Danger

You can read the following text at the top of this blog: "As long as a society has a true freedom of speech it cannot be completely rotten. However, all totally rotten societies are lacking the true freedom of speech."

This is my own statement on what I consider my most important realization related to the political realm: the lack of freedom of speech has always led to societies that, even with the best intentions, cannot be considered good for their inhabitants. That is why society must allow open discussion, even about unpleasant topics. Unfortunately, I am sorry to note that decision-makers in some of the most important Western societies seem to be forgetting this.

This occurred in the UK following violence during demonstrations against immigration, which has led to life-threatening and sexual violence in the island nation. For example, a new UK law allows the government to fine social media companies if they permit "legal but harmful" content, such as misinformation, to spread.

This also happened in the EU, which attempted to censor an interview with a US Presidential candidate—Donald Trump—on an American platform, namely Elon Musk's X.

Interestingly, Elon Musk replied to the EU's letter with wise words from John F. Kennedy: "In 1946, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution reading in part, ´freedom of information is a fundamental human right, and the touchstone of all the freedoms to which the United Nations is consecrated.´ This is our touchstone as well. This is the code of the Voice of America. We welcome the views of others. We seek a free flow of information across national boundaries and oceans, across iron curtains and stone walls. We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."

I fully agree, and I will continue to advocate for freedom of speech and a better world on this blog.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The Relationship Between the Professor and Teemu Selänne
Nightwish and the Disney Company
Ayatollahs in Iran demonstrated their ridiculousness

Everyone has the right

Yesterday's sports news was about an Algerian boxer’s victory over an Italian female boxer. This became news because the Algerian was found to be a man during the 2023 Women's World Championships.

For any reasonable person, it's obviously unethical to allow a man to box against a woman—it's more akin to permitting assault rather than competitive sport. Such a thing should not be allowed under any circumstances.

Yesterday, the International Olympic Committee (IOC), which had allowed the Algerian to compete against women, also commented on the matter. According to the IOC, "all athletes participating in the boxing tournament of the Olympic Games Paris 2024 comply with the competition’s eligibility and entry regulations, as well as all applicable medical regulations set by the Paris 2024 Boxing Unit."

Up to this point, this sounds good, but then comes the bombshell: the IOC's message continues, "as with previous Olympic boxing competitions, the gender and age of the athletes are based on their passport." Yes—dear readers—you read that correctly, the Algerian's presumed gender is based on passport information.

On the other hand, the text later mentions that according to protocols available on the International Boxing Association’s (IBA) website, "this decision"—that is, the Algerian’s suspension—"was initially taken solely by the IBA Secretary General and CEO. The IBA Board only ratified it afterwards and only subsequently requested that a procedure to follow in similar cases in the future be established and reflected in the IBA Regulations. The minutes also say that the IBA should 'establish a clear procedure on gender testing.'"

In other words, the IOC emphasized that its own decision to allow the Algerian to compete in the women's category was not based on proper gender testing. Instead, it was based solely on the suspicion that the Algerian's suspension from the World Championships was without substantial grounds.

Therefore, it is at least ironic to read—still from the same statement—that the IOC "the IOC is committed to protecting the human rights of all athletes participating in the Olympic Games as per the Olympic Charter, the IOC Code of Ethics and the IOC Strategic Framework on Human Rights. The IOC is saddened by the abuse that the two athletes are currently receiving."

Based on this statement, the IOC seems—quite seriously—to consider it appropriate to allow the beating of women by an individual—possibly a man—whose gender is under serious suspicion. And to defer the investigation to some future time, by which point this individual—possibly a man—may have already assaulted up to five women with the support and consent of the IOC.

Finally, it must be said that as a result of the analysis I’ve written above, the woke-sounding opening sentence of the international statement seems downright grotesque and sexist. It states that "every person has the right to practise sport without discrimination."

I wonder what the Italian woman beaten by the Algerian thinks about this—and especially about her own rights?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Mistreatment of Women at the Olympics?
Women full of testosterone
"Woke" pushes American science academies to favor women in their membership selections

Swedish-Somali Offspring, Penalties, and Our Country's Attractiveness Factors

In Finland yesterday, severe sentences were handed down to a large group of individuals guilty of organized crime. According to a report by the National Broadcasting Company Yle, Nassar Abdouraman Moussa received 10 years in prison, Zakaria Said Mohamed 10 years in prison, Hassan Abdulkadir Mohammed 10 years in prison, Mohamed Abdulkadir Okashe 10 years in prison, Farhaan Mohamed Omar 10 years in prison, Mazen Omer 10 years in prison, Abdiwahab Abdirahman Shekul 9 years in prison, Arlind Sokoli 9 years in prison, and Subeir Abdi Qalib 6 years and 6 months in prison. Additionally, the court sentenced a total of 13 individuals to less than six years. One person received a fine, and charges against three individuals were dismissed.

As my esteemed reader might have already noticed from the list of names I copied above, the convicted organized drug dealer group is a result of Nordic immigration policy and its Somali offspring. And that the individuals now convicted have ended up committing crimes in our country as a consequence of the deliberate decisions made by previous governments in Finland - and also in Sweden.

* * *

Another current consequence of the immigration policy practiced is the crime committed by street gangs, which could be described as the terrorizing of others—most often young people. Its occurrence in Finland is also due to the deliberate decisions made by politicians who previously led our country.

Fortunately, the current government, led by Petteri Orpo (National Coalition Party), has prepared a proposal under the leadership of Minister of the Interior Leena Meri (Finns Party), which includes harsher penalties for street gang activities, humiliating victims, and using individuals under the age of 15 in committing crimes. The proposal has been completed and is now going for expert review.

It is to be hoped that the expert reviews will identify all such factors that could weaken the effectiveness of the proposed law change on street gang activities. And that these will be corrected, and the new legislation will come into force as quickly as possible.

* * *

The third current issue relates to reducing the reception allowance paid to immigrants and changing international protection to be temporary. These reforms are also well advanced and are only awaiting approval in Parliament.

Although the amount of the reception allowance or changing protection to be temporary is not directly related to criminals or crime, once implemented, they can be expected to reduce Finland's attractiveness to immigrants seeking better living standards or social security. Thus, over time, it will significantly reduce the number of potential immigrant criminals in the country.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Immigration issue
The stabbing of the 12-year-old led to political revelry among the left in Finland
Getting asylum in Finland becomes significantly more difficult