This also measures the EU’s credibility. As Israel’s largest trading partner, the European Union should impose a trade embargo on the country. The problem in achieving unanimity, of course, lies with individual rogue states, of which Hungary has already stated its opposition to the dissolution of the association agreement between Israel and the EU.
Israel’s deliberate destruction of Gaza and the subsequent two-month aid blockade will likely be condemned as a war crime. Israel’s purpose is, of course, to make the area uninhabitable, which softens the population before the next unequivocal war crimes, namely forced displacement. It remains to be seen whether the EU can truly just stand by if the wildest scenarios come true.
And then immediately in the next paragraph, you start criticizing the Finns Party and labeling them as supporters of Israel and Trump. What if you followed your own advice?
How so? The conflict is not in Europe, nor does it pose a threat to EU states. Ruining trade relations with Israel is not in the interest of Europe or Finland.
I, for one, would hope that the EU would focus primarily on bringing the Russians under control, rather than playing world police. Israeli-supplied weapon systems might very well be helpful in this regard.
Are you serious? Please quote my badmouthing of the Finns Party here as well. Where were the Finns Party members badmouthed there? Finns Party MPs and Christian Democrats are now just the strongest supporters of Israel, and among the Finns Party, support for Trump has been significant, at least previously, and e.g., Halla-Aho, Mäkelä, and many other prominent Finns Party MPs have publicly praised Trump. This is not badmouthing, but a fact. So there’s no need to be offended. Trump’s actions in the Middle East, on the other hand, are so inconsistent that questioning that equation is quite justified.
Because of international law and the content of the association agreement, which requires the realization of human rights, international law, etc. A rule-based society is the foundation of Western civilized nations. War crimes must result in sanctions for any state. Israel has openly stated its intention to commit war crimes, if it hasn’t already. It’s confusing to see how cheaply everything is for sale to so many.
Let’s make this crystal clear. First, you advise to leave out the left-right bickering and say that this is not about left and right, but about the Middle East question.
Next, you go and drag the Finns Party into the discussion in a negative light. If we’re not discussing left and right, then we’re probably not discussing the Finns Party either. Let’s keep Finnish politics as much as possible in its designated thread.
Leave out this kind of moralizing. Nobody cares how morally wrong their opinion is in your view.
Let’s discuss the topic itself neutrally and constructively and bring more information/news/assessments about the Middle East situation and its progression to the thread.
I think a smart person should understand that from this safe haven, one cannot understand all the world’s conditions. It’s always easy to moralize others with incomplete understanding and, on the other hand, be blind to one’s own potential problems. And yes, Finland is one of the safest countries in the world.
Fortunately, CitizenJ dares to offer neutral straight talk. Neutrality often leads to receiving hatred from both extremes. A thankless task, a thankless task.
Israelis around the world are paying the price for Netanyahu’s policies. In Washington, 2 employees belonging to the Israeli embassy have apparently been shot.
Yaron and Sarah were our friends and colleagues. They were in the prime of their lives.
This evening, a terrorist shot and killed them as they exited an event at the Capital Jewish Museum in DC.
The suspect shouted “Free, free Palestine” while being arrested, three law enforcement officials said. Videos obtained by NBC News appear to show the arrest inside the museum.
“We’re going to overcome moral depravity of people who think they’re going to achieve political gains through murder,” Leiter said.
Here’s a reminder. This is about a war crime that Israel has announced it will commit. There’s no need to bring my morality into this, and it’s not about opinion. It’s simply impossible to twist this preparation for an unambiguous war crime, announced by Israel itself, and its public condemnation by our own state leaders and EU leaders, into an individual’s moral reflection. This is a completely neutral view.
Below are quotes from my own messages as a reminder.
Let’s quote Prime Minister Orpo’s neutral view: “Prime Minister Orpo: Population transfer from Gaza is a war crime.” Below is a link to the article.
If an undeniable war crime is committed, its perpetrator is a war criminal, and the terms of the EU-Israel Association Agreement would no longer be met in this regard. Very simple.
One can, of course, debate on the forum whether one should try to keep the discussion non-political, which, given the subject matter, is perhaps slightly peculiar as the entire conflict and its potential consequences are as political as can be. Of course, numbers can be shared, but since their reporter is usually a political entity, and ethical viewpoints and what to emphasize in them are political, I really can’t think of how one could even discuss the topic in a politically neutral way.
Personally, I also believe that blindly appealing to historical agreements is also intellectually somewhat dishonest, as a moment’s thought makes it clear that no such absolute agreement exists that would be right in every situation, and half the world wipes its backside with these agreements if the situation demands it.
If we read it strictly to the letter, the eastern border should not have been closed even if a million people came through it daily, the population should not be forcibly relocated even in a situation where that population, if left in place, will shoot you and your family dead, etc.
In my opinion, this gets to the heart of the matter in a broader sense. The West is being challenged with its own weapons, i.e., adherence to the basic principles of rule of law vs. national security.
In my opinion, national security must come first in all situations, because if it is neglected, soon there will be no one to uphold the basic principles of rule of law either. That is, in order to help others, we must first keep ourselves safe and capable of action. If this requires legislative changes or other measures, these measures must be taken.
For example, the continuation of trade with Israel is a question of national security for us.
I agree. This same dilemma arises in many places. Should agreements be adhered to with a party that does not itself adhere to agreements? To a certain extent, yes, or one cannot start breaking all rules just because the other party is not perfect, but at some point, a limit is reached here too? Should a lawbreaker have legal protection, or should the concept of outlaw be reintroduced? Of course, there must be legal protection, but if the matter is stretched to an extreme, will a limit be reached at some point?
Drawing that line to the perfect spot is a difficult task, but sometimes, in my opinion, we go so far to the other extreme that stating the matter as absurd would be quite easy in these cases. A good example is our eastern neighbor and its shadow fleet dragging anchors.
Also, settling an occupied territory with one’s own population is a war crime according to the Geneva Convention. This undeniable war crime has continued in the West Bank for almost 60 years, but it has not prevented trade or other relations between Israel and the EU. Israel gets to participate in Eurovision and sports competitions like everyone else. And Finland happily buys weapons from Israel, which commits war crimes.
I suspect the same will happen with Gaza. For a while, we will see moral posturing from politicians, but after that, it will be business-as-usual. The only entity that can stop Israel is the USA, but that is unlikely to happen under the current administration. Israel’s actions have traditionally had broad support among the grassroots in both America and Europe. After all, it is fighting radical Islam, and many believe that in such cases, the end justifies the means.
Mainstream media (= HS/YLE). Its problem in this crisis is that 1) Hamas propaganda goes directly into headlines and 2) Israel’s facts are denied
Hamas rocket hits its own hospital. Mainstream media: Israel struck the hospital
Due to Israel’s attack, 14,000 children under 5 are at risk of malnutrition within a year → Mainstream media: 14,000 children could die within two days.
Israel shows a video of tunnels dug by Hamas + there’s a WaPo story about this from 2013 → Mainstream media fact-checker: There is no evidence of tunnels
I would like a media outlet that strives for facts, not speed.
Someone above linked a story about crimes committed by settlers against Palestinians. Thank you. I read that too. I have no problem saying “bad Jews” if there’s a reason.
As a recap, I looked at the formative years of the crisis, 1917-1948. The events of 1948 were a genocide for Palestinians, no one disputes that. The British promised the Jews a land that already had inhabitants, and the UN ratified this. The British secret idea was probably that Palestinians would be colonized outside the area into vast regions where Arabs already lived. Like the Karelian evacuees in Finland. At some point, there were many of them in neighboring countries, and Jordan even granted citizenships. In return for this, they tried to seize power in Jordan.
The solutions to this crisis seem to be 1) genocide of Palestinians (ongoing now) 2) genocide of Jews, or that 3) Arabs take Palestinians into their own countries, like the Karelian evacuees already share language and religion, 4) Western countries take Jews as refugees.
The terrorist organization Hamas, according to its charter, fights for the destruction and termination of the State of Israel - that is, for its termination - and receives background support from Hezbollah and Yemen’s Houthis. And all these terrorist organizations are supported by Iran. According to Hamas’s charter, Israel’s existence must be destroyed. And they are in no way changing their goals, even if some solution were to be reached now. The same will continue, just as it has continued until now. …This matter must now be put into the correct context. Building peace should start with the removal of such statements and goals - regarding the termination of the State of Israel. They cannot be accepted. Under no circumstances can Palestine be recognized where Hamas rules… I wonder why, in this situation, refugees are not leaving Palestine for neighboring Arab countries until Hamas is crushed.
In the Syrian war, 600,000 people died and 7 million became refugees. Then there were no marches, no demonstrations…but now there are, and the overall picture is not understood at all.
That’s precisely the topic at hand: Israel’s forced displacement or destruction of Gazans is, in a way, a direct continuation of the colonial policy practiced by the British in the region. No one asked the Palestinians if it was acceptable for Israel to be founded where it is now. Because of this, I don’t believe in any peaceful solution to this matter. Mistakes were made right from the founding of Israel, and the price of those mistakes is being paid now. Apparently, until the last Palestinian’s life.
If only we could learn from Israel and Yugoslavia that it’s better to let nations handle their own affairs than to have the UN dictate what is right.
Although Arab countries with various coalitions have repeatedly attacked Israel since 1948, this two-state model has been attempted, but
Yasser Arafat rejected a peace plan for a Palestinian state in 2000 at the so-called Camp David summit, even though all other Arab countries supported it
And in the autumn of 2005, Israel completely withdrew
from the Gaza Strip and handed over the Jewish settlements built there over 30 years to the PLO.
since then, large amounts of humanitarian aid have flowed into Gaza, including cement for residential construction needs
so there has been an attempt at this two-state model
but Palestine itself was never really behind it; on the contrary, the destruction of the State of Israel is in their charter
instead, Hamas controlled all aid and used the cement to build a network of tunnels under Gaza
So what followed from this aid?
Hamas prepared the attack for years and then brutally carried it out in 2023.
Based on this, no Hamas-controlled Palestine can be recognized. Furthermore, it would not lead to any solution.
Some other solution to this matter must be found.
There weren’t any other Arab countries present at Camp David, and they also didn’t seem to like the fact that Palestinian refugees wouldn’t be able to return to their homes due to Israel’s (understandable from their perspective) demand.
There has indeed been an attempt, but the right-wing seems to have constantly tried to thwart it. The Oslo peace process perhaps truly hit a wall already in 1995 when Rabin was assassinated and Netanyahu took over, who has always more or less opposed the two-state model - even though it continued until Camp David and the Second Intifada.
While it is probably factually true that Palestine has ultimately rejected almost all peace agreements, it gives a very black-and-white picture of the issue. The same could be said about the war in Ukraine, and indeed it is said. That is, it is probably factually true (there are hardly any documents on the subject available) that this war would have ended already in March 2022, but Ukraine rejected Russia’s proposed peace.
The Palestinian Authority’s constitution seems to recognize Israel and strive for a two-state model, but Hamas’s charter seemed to demand the destruction of Israel, although this was reportedly abandoned, at least on paper, earlier.
Hamas can no longer really be seen as a party to an agreement, but Netanyahu has chosen a rather poor solution method even now.
Here’s that same old ‘whataboutism’ again – how long can Israel’s actions be justified by Hamas’s evil?
Israel is quite concretely doing what Hamas would wish it could do.
Namely, destroying all hope for an independent Palestinian people.
Even if the founding of Israel perhaps once wasn’t intended to drive out the indigenous population for American immigrants, the actions of the current Israel leave no doubt that this is the intention of the current government.
The fact that someone would want to do something does not, in my opinion, give a mandate to carry out the same ‘beauty’.
