Obama’s Nobel Prize

letter-447577_1280

While everyone, from left to right, may be scratching their heads in disbelief, I don’t see why one should be so perplexed. The Peace [read: politics] prize has been given to Al Gore for one-sided pseudo-science about Global Warming… and Yasir Arafat, whose “peace” plan was an advanced [and very successful] war strategy. So why should we be surprised?

You may also like...

23 Responses

  1. Bob Miller says:

    Regarding the comment by Myron Chaitovsky — October 15, 2009 @ 4:54 pm:

    Maybe the two committees and their events can merged for greater efficiency.

  2. Ori says:

    Steve Brizel: The Nobel Peace Prize and its awardees deserve special scrutiny with regards to the composition of the committee that awards the prize and the relationship, or lack thereof, of the awardee with political reality.

    Ori: The Nobel Prizes are essentially a private institute. Nobel specified in his will that he wanted the peace prize to be awarded by a committee selected by the Norwegian parliament. It was his money, so it was his choice.

    Technically speaking, I could set up the Ori Peace Prize ($1 for each award). I’d say that a select committee of the Pflugerville school board would award it. It would be just as valid.

  3. tzippi says:

    Scrutinizing the committee sounds fine to me, but who’ll be doing said scrutinizing? When conclusions are drawn how will they be carried out? And who will care?

  4. Steve Brizel says:

    The Nobel Peace Prize and its awardees deserve special scrutiny with regards to the composition of the committee that awards the prize and the relationship, or lack thereof, of the awardee with political reality.

  5. Myron Chaitovsky says:

    Maybe the bribes that were supposed to go to Olympic Committee members (in the normal course of business, of course) went to the Nobel people in error?

  6. mb says:

    You mean the Guardian listed Arafat without Rabin? Weren’t they “partners” the same year??

    Comment by Melanie — October 14, 2009 @ 4:57 am

    Correct and Shimon Peres.

    They also listed Anwar Sadat without his co-winner Menachem Begin.

  7. Bob Miller says:

    We should encourage the awarding of Nobel Peace Prizes to recipients who have done nothing. This might encourage them to continue doing nothing, as opposed to wrecking the world.

  8. Ahron says:

    The prize is irrelevant to Pres. Obama himself (he obviously has not had enough time to do anything to either warrant the prize or disqualify himself from future consideration) but it speaks volumes of the state of mind of modern Western Europe.

    The “award” of a once-meaningful prize to a new President on the grounds that he promotes talking, captures like nothing else the moral vacuity and incoherence of contemporary European political life. European societies are chiefly concerned with remaining comfortable.

    And in Obama they see a man who, because of his penchant for “talking” to hostile governments instead of using American geopolitical weight, might prolong the period of comfort before intractable realities start to spoil Europe’s comfort soup.

    What realities? Little problems like an Islamic government (and soon many Islamic governments) armed with nuclear weapons and the missiles to express deliver them to Europe. To deal with the problem now, and ensure a generation or several of relative security, would require a forceful posture (possibly including military force) and likely economic discomfort and risk. Who wants that?

    Better to award a prize for “talking”…. and assume that the intractable problems will vanish of their own accord or via the awardee’s talent for enthralling prose and munificent verbiage.

    To some that mindset may resemble primitive magical thinking, but it’s a lot more comfortable than ending the party.

  9. Reb Yid says:

    The politics cuts both ways….Kissinger had plenty of blood on his hands in Chile, Vietnam and elsewhere when he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

    Obama was a poor choice at worst and an arguably disputable choice at best. No-one on this board can hope to claim “media bias” on this story–even the late night talk shows have gotten laughs out of this.

    But I think some on this board and elsewhere, regardless of their politics, are missing the boat regarding criteria.

    It’s not so much about the end results that will end up defining Obama (although hopefully he can get the ball rolling with some kind of health care bill, however imperfect…that would be a much needed corrective). It’s about redefining the political process…looking for workable ideas/solutions from wherever they may emanate…avoiding a “divide and conquer” mentality utilized by Bush/Rove/Limbaugh.

    Hopefully, over time, that will produce a more healthy and productive political climate, both domestically and abroad.

  10. tzippi says:

    To 12 and all who write similarly, it’s a no-brainer. Even the left wing radio hosts I listen to will countenance that. Up to a point. Problem is, they still think it’s an honor to America and that anyone who disagrees is being un-American.

    The right and left are, sadly,working on parallel lines; they’ll never meet.

  11. Bruce says:

    Arafat would have deserved the prize if what he said (at least in English, to some audiences, sometimes) was true and credible. The problem was that it was pretty clear at the time, if not shortly afterwards, that he was not credible. But his award can be attributed to the Nobel committee’s stupidity or naivety, and perhaps their willful stupidity or naivety.

    But one cannot even make the argument for Obama.

  12. Dov says:

    You’re missing the point here.

    I can and do disagree with most of the recent recipients of the Nobel Peace prize, particularly those around the Middle East. But at least they had all done something, with the emphasis on “DONE.” I may disagree with all the things that were done, but they had at least DONE something. And at least the Nobel Prize committee were awarding people for actions that they agreed with le’shita’sam.

    But this case is unique in that there was nothing DONE!

    Even Obama supporters agree that this one is an insult to the Nobel Prize itself and treats Obama like someone that isn’t expected to actually do anything.

  13. Melanie says:

    You mean the Guardian listed Arafat without Rabin? Weren’t they “partners” the same year??

  14. One Christian's perspective says:

    My first reaction to hearing that President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize was shock and then, after I learned his name was submitted just days after he took Office, I was embarrased. Later, the President stated disbelief because he hadn’t done anything………….but, was humbled and accepted the prize anyway.

    Can there be humility without wisdom ? Can there be wisdom without the light of G-d ?

  15. Shmuel says:

    Prize will encourage Pres. Obama to pursue a “peace at any price ” strategy. Israel’s nuclear deterrent will be sacrificed to achieve this end.

  16. Jewish Observer says:

    “So why should we be surprised?”

    – This is like asking why are we so surprised that rabbis misbehave, when we know they are human? As humans, we, perhaps naievely, crave for infallibility, nobility, or at least order. Same with this. We secretly would love to believe in the nobility of the Nobel because it assures us we are part of a world that makes sense.

  17. Nathan says:

    Jimmy Carter also won the Nobel Peace Prize, yet he is considered to be one of the worst presidents by many Americans.

    Yitzchak Rabin of Israel won the Nobel Peace Prize for making one-sided suicidal concessions to Yassir Arafat, who deliberately targeted civilians for death, including children, and who proved countless times he was not interested in peace, even after he co-won Nobel Peace Prize with Yitzchak Rabin.

    It seems that the Nobel Peace Prize is sometimes awarded to people whose leadership is not good for the nations they represent.

  18. aron feldman says:

    If past precedent means anything here,one could say that the criteria for winning the Nobel Prize is the willingness to coddle despots and murderers, so if Jimmy Carter and Kofi Anan could win it why not BHO?

  19. L. Oberstein says:

    No argument from me. No one thinks that Obama truly deserved the Peace Prize, not even Obama. He was awarded it because he is not George Bush. The Europeans are so happy that there is a new tone in Washington and they want to give him chizuk. It was premature and may even put him on the spot. I hope that the US vetoes the resolution in the Security Council condemning Israel for its actions in Gaza, the Goldstone Report. My concern is that the Peace Prize could make Obama want to be more forceful for peace and thus the US would only abstain. We need Divine Help.

  20. mb says:

    The Guardian newspaper in England published the complete list of previous Peace Prize winners,shortly after the announcement, and rather suspiciously omitted, Menachem Begin, Yitzchak Rabin and Shimon Peres!

    [YA – The other British papers spotted it, and held the Guardian’s feet to the fire. Hours later, they were forced to drop their judenrein policy, and put back the Jewish laureates.]

  21. Mark says:

    Coming hard on the heels of an undisguised bias for Obama in the mainstream media I, for one, wasn’t in the least bit surprised. Clearly there is something about this individual that excites people and gives them hope.
    Do I agree with the sentiment? Not really, but I’d be a fool to deny that it exists.
    The Noble Peace Committee simply displayed the same bias and freely admitted to have done so. Bravo for them. It is a whole lot better than pretending to be objective and acting otherwise.
    Would I be happy about this award if I was President Obama? I doubt it because it sets him up for failure and demonstrates that much of his popularity is built on nebulous whims but if he succeeds in doing some of the things he set out to achieve, this award will be another feather in his cap.
    I’m not terribly hopeful.

  22. Bob Miller says:

    Reverence for the Nobel Peace Prize, the UN, and countless other modern sacred cows of liberalism will not be shaken by mere logic or demonstration.

  23. DF says:

    R’ Yakov, as they say in Yiddish/Aramaic, “Ain Hachi Nami” – indeed, we are not surprised. As you wrote, given the people the’ve given this now-laughable award to in the past, it was no shock to see it go to Obama.

    The Nobel peace prize had already gone down the once-estimable Time Magazine Person [formerly “Man”] of the Year award, another prize that lost any significance about 15-20 ago. The same can be said of the Pulitzer and the Oscars. In essence, since so many of society’s institutions designed to recognize achivement are now more concerned with political correctness than merit, most of us no longer care about them. The peopel connected with these institutions still play them, of course, and certainly the recipients make a big to-do of it. But everyone knows these awards have become meaningless. The Obama award just drove this point home to more people.