Opinion letter, 14 October 2023 in Savon Sanomat

Huvila interprets recent history in a biased way

Risto Huvila, writing to Savon Sanomat (SS 11.10.2023), refers to my comments in an interview with Savon Sanomat (SS 9.10.2023), as if my condemning position on the attack by the terrorist organization Hamas had somehow remained unclear. The claim is false.

I strongly and unequivocally condemned it even before all the details of the terrorist attack were clear. I found the attack shocking and senseless. It will only lead to destruction and death for everyone. Hamas holds both Israelis and Palestinians hostage.

The comment of mine which Huvila quoted, relating to the unfair treatment of Palestinians, continued like this: “But nothing justifies such senseless and shocking terror”.

Later information about the attack has only confirmed my understanding. It’s as if bloodthirsty wild beasts have been released from their cages. Israel has a right to exist and to secure borders.

Hamas seeks to destroy Israel and kill Jews. It cannot and must not have any role in the peace negotiations.

But Risto Huvila, who has a Pentecostal background, does not hold that position either. He supports Christian Zionism and biblical fundamentalism. It examines the conflict mostly in the light of Bible prophecies. The Palestinians will only play the role of a distraction.

The starting point is one-sided, and the interpretations are questionable. They do not bring peace. They ignore the Old Testament’s message about justice. They justify the oppression of five million Palestinians.

That is why Palestinian Christians, who belong to the original inhabitants of the Holy Land, reject Christian Zionism as a heresy, whose distorted biblical interpretations “pose a threat to our entire existence”.

In Finland, the political importance of Christian Zionism has weakened, as Dr. Timo Stewart, who argued about the phenomenon, shows in his book Luvatun maan lumo (2022). Many revivalist Christians are already distancing themselves from Christian Zionism.

From partisan starting points, Huvila interprets recent history in a biased way: Israelis are seen as peaceful, and the land belongs only to them.

Palestinians are seen as inherently violent, who are to blame for their own problems. They are not considered a real people. Thus, their rights to the land and their dream of independence are denied.

In a typical fashion, Huvila dodges the question of what should be done for the five million Palestinians living under occupation in the West Bank and Gaza.

Is his message to the Palestinians this: submit to Israeli rule without civil rights or disappear from the country? Apartheid or ethnic cleansing?

It is still a time of mourning, but the root causes must be discussed. Why is militant resistance among Palestinians growing?

Israel’s own postmortem started immediately. Daniel Levy, who participated in the peace negotiations as a representative of the governments of Yitzhak Rabin and Ehud Barack, presented the injustice and hopelessness experienced by the Palestinians as the reason: “They have been constantly denied basic freedoms, they have lived for six decades under permanent occupation” (BBC News 8.10.).

Without the experience of injustice, Hamas would not have been born. Without the experience of unfairness, it would not gain support. Therefore, lasting peace cannot be born without justice for both parties.

The solution is political, not military.

 

The author is the bishop of the Diocese of Kuopio of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland.

 

*********

Bishop Jari Jolkkonen: 

Opinion letter, 2 November 2023 in Savon Sanomat

A just peace takes into account the rights of both parties

Heikki Juutinen (SS 18.10.2023) and Risto Huvila (SS 22.10.2023), representing Finland-Israel clubs, continue in the pages of Savon Sanomat the discussion on the conflict between Israel and Palestine. According to both, Israel has patiently offered peace, while the Palestinians have stubbornly refused it.

The negotiation history and the “Israel has no partner for negotiation” -justifications are always invoked when one wants to prevent a peace agreement based on the two-state model. In fact, both sides of the conflict have always had their own supporters of peace and their own warmongers.

A great light of hope was kindled when the leaders of Israel and Palestine signed the Oslo Accords. Yasser Arafat, Simon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994. Benjamin Netanyahu, who represented Israel’s right-wing opposition, strongly opposed the agreement and announced that his Likud party would annul it as soon as it came to power. Hamas also opposed the peace agreement and organized a series of terrorist attacks. This is how it helped Netanyahu’s election victory on May 29, 1996.

Netanyahu’s Israel has used settler colonialism to oppress the Palestinians. The population of the settlements built on the Israeli-occupied West Bank has more than doubled. 750,000 settlers already live on Palestinian lands.

At the same time, Palestinian homes are bulldozed. The fight against Hamas provides a suitable smokescreen.

The obvious purpose is to take over the country piece by piece, destroy the Oslo agreement, annex the occupied territories to Israel and make the Palestinian dream of their own state impossible. UN resolutions and the International Court of Justice condemn settlement building.

Within Israel, criticism of Netanyahu is now intensifying because he has been strengthening Hamas and cooperating with it for years. General and ex-prime minister Ehud Barak described this cynical strategy in August 2019: “Its purpose is to keep Hamas alive and functioning, even at the expense of the lives of the residents of southern Israel, so that the Palestinian Authority operating in the West Bank remains weak. With the help of Hamas, it is easier for Netanyahu to explain to the Israelis that we have no negotiating party.”

Huvila repeats this war propaganda when he writes that Israel is not a party to the two-state solution. He is silent on how the fate of the more than five million Palestinians in the region should be resolved. The point of view can be deduced between the lines.

Huvila would seek a solution in the relocation of Palestinians to other Arab countries: “It is confusing that no one asks why Egypt or Jordan, or other Arab countries, whose land areas are more than six hundred times larger than Israel’s, do not agree to accept any Palestinian refugees.”

This is called ethnic cleansing.

For those Palestinians who remain in the country, he is probably ready to offer submission to Israeli supremacy without equal civil rights. This is called apartheid.

In the background, the idea of ​​Palestinians as an inferior non-nation is reflected. This is called racism.

Huvila justifies his views with Bible prophecies. Together with Palestinian Christians, I repeat: such sanctifying interpretations of oppression are distorted. They have no place in the parishes of the Diocese of Kuopio. We support a just peace that takes equally into account the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians. Only such a peace can last.

 

The author is the bishop of the Diocese of Kuopio of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland.