How the Norwegian Parliament Debased a Once-Noble Prize

When I heard the news that the 2009 Nobel Peace prize was to be awarded to US President Barack Hussein Obama, I had to pinch myself to make sure I wasn’t dreaming. When it became clear I was not, I had to look at the calendar to make sure it wasn’t April 1st. No, it really was October 10th.
After finally coming to terms with the fact that I was not in the realm of Morpheus, nor was it April Fools’ Day, I was uncertain whether to laugh or cry. Alfred Nobel must be turning in his grave! By the terms of his will, the Peace Prize is to be awarded to "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." Does anyone seriously believe that Obama meets this requirement???
What has the man achieved other than shuttling around the world posing for the cameras at international conferences which have failed to achieve anything whatsoever, calling for "meaningful dialogue" (whatever that may be)?
Has he brought peace to even one area of conflict? Has he had even the smallest modicum of success in persuading the Iranians to abandon their nuclear programme?
On second thoughts – maybe we should just be grateful the woolly-headed Norwegian Nobel Committee didn’t decide to award the prize to that noted humanitarian and lover of peace, Mahmoud Ahmedinajad. Oh well, there’s always next year…

About Shimona from the Palace

Born in London, the UK, I came on Aliyah in my teens and now live in Jerusalem, where I practice law. I am a firm believer in the words of Albert Schweitzer: "There are two means of refuge from the sorrows of this world - Music and Cats." To that, you can add Literature. To curl up on the sofa with a good book, a cat at one's feet and another one on one's lap, with a classical symphony or concerto in the background - what more can a person ask for?
This entry was posted in News and politics. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to How the Norwegian Parliament Debased a Once-Noble Prize

  1. Kenneth says:

    The Scandinavians move in mysterious ways. But at least Obama has stated that he shall donate the money to charity. How kind of him !!!

  2. Shimona from the Palace says:

    But Kenny, EVERY Nobel Peace Prize recipient donates the money to charity – it\’s "the done thing". Well, almost every recipient. Yassir Arafat believed that charity begins at home…..

  3. Kenneth says:

    I wonder if after a few years in office, Obama proves to be undeserving of the award. Can the Nobel committee revoke it. It may not be the done thing but it would be the thing to do.

  4. GreatGranny says:

    Very good post…. I\’d like to know what charity too….

  5. Shimona from the Palace says:

    They should have revoked the award they made to Yassir Arafat. If anyone was ever undeserving of the award, he was.

  6. LAIRD says:

    Perhaps he won it because someone at last in america asked israel to stop ignoring UN mandates.

  7. Kenneth says:

    LAIRDWhen America invaded Iraq, did they listen to the UN.We all know that the UN. is nothing more than a toothless frog, hopping around the world.

  8. Shimona from the Palace says:

    Kenny, I love the image of the UN as "a toothless frog". Kaaaaark, kaaaaaaark…

  9. Shimona from the Palace says:

    Laird, the one-sidedness of UN mandates is such that it becomes a moral imperative to ignore them.

  10. Grandpa Dewey says:

    Shimona, This is a very good post. Obama, is doing just the opposite, he is destroying peace very slowly in my book.You have some great photos going on.

  11. LAIRD says:

    it always amazes me how forgetful people are – the twin states of israel AND palastine were conceived at YALTA and born under the auspice of the fledgling UN. Was this a "one sided" decision? I do not think so.

  12. Shimona from the Palace says:

    Unfortunately, Laird, the ARABS chose to ignore this particular decision and attacked Israel from Day 1. Had they not done so, there might have been a Palestinian state 61 years ago already. They had only themselves to blame, therefore, when Israel ended up with slightly more than the fledgling UN intended to give them, and since the Arabs continued to attack Israel over the years, they had only themselves to blame when Israel ended up with the Golan Heights, the West Bank and Gaza in her hands in the wake of the Six Day War. After which, BTW, the Israeli Government stated that everything was negotiable and the Arabs continued to insist: "No Peace with Israel, no Negotiations with Israel, no Recognition of Israel". However, the particular UN mandate I was thinking of when I wrote the comment to which you are referring, was the one setting up the so-called "fact" finding mission under Richard Goldstone – more about which, in my next blog.

  13. LAIRD says:

    mmmmmmm are the ones who "chose" to ignore the decision the ones who were dispossessed of homes , shops & land and herded into "refugee" camps? Camps set up, sadly, by the british army? Camps where mistrust and hatred was allowed to ferment by a succession of short sighted [world] politicians? Civil wars are always ugly – look what happened when the british left the Indian sub continent – total mayhem! At least there it involved indigineous peoples – not a mass immigration of foreign nationals. Many of my jewish school friends hailed the reincarnation of the land of milk and honey, by 1967 they were having doubts . . .. I wonder what they think today in this "brave new world" ?

  14. Shimona from the Palace says:

    Actually, Laird, you are to a great extent correct in your implication that those who "chose" to ignore the Partition Decision were not those who, in the end, found themselves dispossessed of homes and land. When I said "the Arabs" chose to ignore the Partition Resolution, I referred to the Arab world in general, that is to say, all the Arab States in existence at the time (Egypt, Transjordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and a few others whose names escape me at present) who refused to countenance the very idea of a Jewish state and then, just like Hamas and Hizbollah now, were perfectly ready to sacrifice their own brethren (by which I mean the Arabs living in what was then the Mandated Territory of Palestine) in order to achieve the sacred goal of driving the Jews into the sea. The Jews accepted the Partition Resolution. But I reject your implication that the Jews are not "indigenous" to the Land of Israel. What took place after 1948 was not a "mass immigration of foreign nationals" – at least, not in the way you mean, although many of them may have held foreign passports – but the return of a dispossessed people to their ancient homeland. As to the mistrust and hatred which, you say, a succession of shortsighted (world) politicians allowed to ferment in the refugee camps – I agree with you in part, although in my opinion, it was deliberately fostered by the Arab leaders with the active connivance of the UN. But that is a subject for a whole new blog …

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s