I believe JumpCrisscross is suggesting that the World Food Programme winning the Nobel Prize is effectively the Nobel Foundation giving them 9m SEK to carry on their work (eg a grant) rather than awarding them the prize for the work they do to promote peace (eg a prize). I didn't read the comment as tongue in cheek at all. I read it as JumpCrisscross saying WFP didn't do enough to deserve the prize, presumably because tackling poverty and starvation isn't enough in JumpCrisscross's opinion.
That's precisely the reason why it was meant to be awarded for recent work/discoveries, and cannot be awarded posthumously. It is, and always has been, a grant program.
I fully agree. The Nobel Peace Price had its reputation badly damaged when they gave it to Obama for "becoming president while being black and not George W. Bush".
Bush did far more damage than Trump in my opinion. He set the direction for policies for decades to come. Terrorism everywhere... An aging western population will keep it that way for a few more.
But Dick Cheney stripped president Bush to a mere symbolic endeavor while upgraded his span of control as Vice with the executive power Cheney took from W. Bush before they went in office.
I highly recommend watching the movie Vice which gives a very telling report on these developments.
Some people say Bush behavior after his time in office is very typical for people that experienced severe gaslighting which manifests as a condition similar to Stockholm syndrome.
Bush was installed as President and kept in the dark because Dick Cheney had all foreign policies in his power portfolio.
I agree Cheney is as evil as they come but for the love of humanity please don't use fiction as reference. Misinformation is already bad enough out there. Movies are for entertainment that deliberately skew history to pull heart strings to get you to watch and more importantly talk about the movie so others will watch it too providing more revenue for the showrunner.
While I agree that Cheney was probably more powerful than a normal VP, you really need to keep in mind that the movie Vice is still fictionalized, with its own narrative and interpretation of events to push that may or may not have anything to do with reality.
That you call it a "telling report" suggests you might also want to revisit your perspective on Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter.
The award is to be given based on last years effort.
Obama had the time between Jan and Oct 2019 in office, where he did several important things to improve world peace.
Obamas administration was far more destructive to world peace than Trump who talks a lot of rubbish but haven't dragged America to new conflicts and wars. Also getting rid of that war hawk Bolton itself deserves far more Nobel peace prize.
I don’t agree - a black person rising to the Presidency given the US’s cultural problem regarding race has achieved something truly noteworthy.
And prizes, well they’re not always awards for past actions but instead act as a financial and prestige boost for someone with potential to help them achieve more.
I think it's easy to forget how dicey the nuclear treaty situation had become by the time Obama took office; Obama's commitment to a real replacement for START was actually quite important. That said, that arguably is just getting the prize for not being Bush.
...the prize for not being Bush.
It is more like Nobel board hoping to influence him "to" not being Bush. Unfortunately he did, destroying Libya and Syria. He also bomb hospital, killing children. So much for Peace prize. And coming soon next year the full unveiling of Obamagate with the full release of the investigations.
> The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2020 to the World Food Programme (WFP) for its efforts to combat hunger, for its contribution to bettering conditions for peace in conflict-affected areas and for acting as a driving force in efforts to prevent the use of hunger as a weapon of war and conflict.
Good. Giving recognition to often overlooked efforts like this is completely deserved and worthy of this prize.
Im not sure why this is but I'm always happier about the prize going to an organization rather than an individual person. I think literally placing the entire weight of world peace on one person is too much, and it places that person under incredible scrutiny for the rest of their life (or conversely anything bad they personally did in the past gets dragged up). handing it to an org recognizes that it takes much more than a single person to effect change and puts the cause above identity or personal flaws.
Malala does seem to be handling it well, so what do I know.
Totally agree. The European Union got the peace prize in 2012. Europa used to be most warn torn part of the world, and the origin of two world wars. Members states of the EU are expelled if they have armed conflicts with their neighbouring countries.
Not exactly - there's no mechanism to expel a member state from the EU.
Member states may have "certain [...] rights deriving from the application of the Treaties to the Member State in question, including the voting rights of the representative of the government of that Member State in the Council" suspended, but "The obligations of the Member State in question under the Treaties shall in any case continue to be binding on that State." (Article 7 TEU)
The only way for a member state to cease being a member state is through the withdrawal process in Article 50 TEU (i.e. like Brexit).
That is commonly believed, yes - it has brought together countries that had been in a bitter war less than 50 years earlier, and may well have preserved the peace.
Pure speculation. Just like the states haven't had a war because they're the United States. Imagine if the states would have become independent countries. I can imagine the endless warfare. Nobel in Peace as clearly deserved as the European States.
Sure, it's all speculation, not claiming otherwise. But this can be said about any historical event that was "prevented" - by definition, it didn't happen, so we can only assume that it could have happened if something didn't stop it.
In this day and age, a single person having this level of impact on the world is rare. They might be the figure head, but there is usually a team behind the figure head that finally implements it. The team also deserve the recognition.
In 1998 'United Nations Peacekeeping Forces' [1] won the peace prize; and this particular winner (org had people from multiple countries) is true embodiment of the point - "it takes much more than a single person..".
Like I said to get these Countries to RECOGNIZE each other is a major accomplishment. Downvoting does not accomplish much besides suppress the truth via greyed out text.
HN mods should flag this discussion. Sad to see this type of divisive behavior but I'm not surprised. I'm personally excited to see UAE and Israel sitting at a table instead of flinging bombs but I've always been pro peace. Perhaps Obama supporters truly are not. Gross
> Get Syria, Iran, Palestine and Israel to sign a peace agreement, now that would be an accomplishment.
Did Obama do that? Then why was he given the Nobel Peace Prize? See that is why I said it is a joke! You guys have different standards for Obama and Trump. With Obama, he literally did not do anything and was given the Nobel Peace Prize. Even he was shocked when he heard it. But Trump did much more good than Obama and yet he hasn't been awarded. It is a joke!
Obama literally launched 12 new proxy wars during his entire tenure. Trump hasn't launched even one. Most US Presidents have been involved in some War or the other. Trump pulled troops out of Syria and Afghanistan. That is an accomplishment in itself.
I realize this will cause cognitive dissonance in rabid anti-Trumpers but the fact that this admin has brokered MENA deals to recognize Israel as a Nation is a very positive thing for World Peace. Unlike the constant bombing of MENA by Bush and then by Obama. Disgusting policy really. The Obama win was laughable, why did he get it again? Instead of downvotes can we get some information?
Obama getting the prize wrongfully doesn't make trump more or less suitable.
As an Israeli, I tell you, this peace deal is a joke. We've had relations with the UAE for decades, they were never hostile to Israel. It was nothing more than a photo op for Netanyahu. The UAE and Bahrein didn't even send same level representatives. The sent foreign ministers for meeting our prime minister. Seems silly, but it tells how serious this accord is.
So a peace deal that changed nothing. And will only let some arms dealers pocket extra bucks. The Palestinians will still be under Israeli military rule. Israel citizens are still targeted by missiles and rockets. Violence is still prospering here. Peace is no closer.
> As an Israeli, I tell you, this peace deal is a joke
Not a joke but a start. You have to start somewhere and this is the first step towards it.
> Seems silly, but it tells how serious this accord is.
Not silly at all. Peace Accords bind Nations. It has nothing to do with who was present at the signing ceremony. As long as it is accepted by the Nations involved it is as legitimate as they come.
> We've had relations with the UAE for decades, they were never hostile to Israel
Hostility is not just in terms of War. Hostility can even be in terms of who the country votes for in the UN on key issues that concerns Israel. If you look at it that way, India has never been hostile towards Israel. Never waged a War. But we always supported the Palestinian cause. That has started to change because of the development of Israel-India ties with India moving closer to Israel than ever before since 2014. It was because of Modi's visit to Israel and Netanyahu's visit to India. These things might seem silly but this is how diplomacy is carried out. How else would you think a solution can be achieved without waging a big War? Through diplomatic means. For Israel, truly making friends is a big criteria. It helps in putting diplomatic pressure on Israel's adversaries instead of resorting to military options! Right now Israel is using military options because it lacks unanimous support across the World. Nearly half of the countries in the World oppose Israel's moves. Through these Peace Accords, the countries that were on the fence when it came to Israel will now be more enthusiastically involved in achieving final Peace in the region. Because they are now stakeholders too. Once these countries (and many others) join in, pressure will build on Israel's adversaries to come to the table and negotiate a Peace deal. This is how it is done. One small step at a time.
With more peace deals to come, by the way. Also he did not start any new wars, and started withdrawing US forces from the idiotic endless wars started by previous administrations. Donald Trump has done more for world peace than any US president since Reagan. It'd go further back than that, but Reagan defeated communism, which is pretty huge in itself.
Somehow more forces in all the places he said he would withdraw forces from than the beginning of his term = withdrawal of forces?
The only genuine force withdrawal he did was in Syria, which will damage the US dramatically going forward because they completely abandoned their allies because Erdogan was able to sweet talk Donald Teump.
And the “peace deals” are a joke because they were signed between Israel and countries that were never hostile towards each other in the first place. UAE and Bahrain? It was simply Trump paying UAE/Bahrain your tax dollars for them to formally announce something that has always been the case, and Bibi doing the same so that Trump could continue to allow him to annex Palestinian land in peace to satisfy the most orthodox people in his country who are keeping him in power and saving him from prosecution.
And yeah, supplying arms to the Saudis so they can continue slaughtering the Yemenis and unilaterally breaking a peace deal so Iranians can die in massive numbers are not starting a war, but is causing civilian death tolls that are extremely high.
And sure, creating massive instability and allowing China to run free in most of Asia and Africa is also not starting a war, but is completely weakening the US and emboldening China in ways we couldn’t have imagined 5 years ago (for all his anti China talk, Trump has been remarkably weak against them, which isn’t surprising considering that until January the highlight of his tenure was gonna be a joke of a trade deal with China, and that he spent years without touching trade with China but slapping tariffs on all the US’s allies).
And of course, dismantling treaties with Russia, such as the open skies treaty for example, which was a completely one sided treaty in favor of the US and its allies only served to increase the risk of war.
And how about jumping into peace talks between S Korea and N Korea (S Korea’s new President was elected on the explicit platform of trying to restart peace discussions with N Korea) and derailing the entire process, by giving Kim exactly what he wanted...a photo op with the US president which he could promote within his own country, without getting anything in return (I guess the love letters from Kim to Donald Trump was something).
And we haven’t even gotten to the part where he and his have explicitly and implicitly supported and emboldened white supremacists in the US and Europe.
Donald Trump is best looked at as someone who never boiled the water, but definitely turned up the temperature so it’s hitting close to 190. He has taken decades of goodwill and trust, and burned it so he could claim minor victories which hurt the US massively but can be something for him to crow about.
It requires an extremely narrow way of looking at the world (at basically the PR level) to think Donald Teump is even close to being net positive for world peace.
> It requires an extremely narrow way of looking at the world (at basically the PR level) to think Donald Teump is even close to being net positive for world peace.
This checks out - pretty much everything being posted by Trump fans in this thread is a rewording of the PR spin we see Twitter bots spamming everywhere.
When did obama say anything devisive? When did he actively intended to enflame tense situation? When did he say anything outright disrespectful to his opposition ?
Obama may not have been perfect but he was always respectful, always kept his cool.
Comparing Trump's hateful rhetoric of his opposition to
How obama conducted himself is a bad joke.
One thing a lot of people don't realise is that Trump is the first president in a long time that hasn't invaded a country. Sure he's authorised bombings, which president hasn't?
But I can't remember the last time a president didn't put troops somewhere. Ironically he's getting a lot of hate for pulling out of Syria/Germany.
Actions speak louder than words.
Obama did nothing to receive the prize but being a puppet of George Soros.
Trump achieved something historical in the Middle East.
> Do you really want to start comparing the public record?
Public record is what they did when they were both in office for the people of the United States. I would definitely compare the two because Trump will win hands down. You are wanting to compare the two Twitter accounts. Tweets don't feed people. Tweets don't solve issues. Tweets don't make policies.
> Inclusive language does not stop being inclusive just because it angers racists.
Since you wanted to compare the two let us start with funding of Historically Black Colleges. Because a "racist" President would never increase funds for HBCUs. Instead, he would ensure that the funding is reduced. Obama in the first two years: $1.43B. Trump in first two years of his office: $1.58B [1].
"And even though we may not be able to fully trust numbers compiled by officials working under partisan directives, there are few budget outlines of any kind which suggest other than what too many of us fear; the guy we love to hate is showing historic love to historically black colleges."
“Oh, man … yesterday was great and historic. I’ve been around a long time and I’ve never seen so many black folks gathered in the Oval Office,” said Haynes, who was part of that photo opportunity. He also helped bring together the Trump administration and congressional leaders to discuss areas of collaboration between HBCUs and the federal government.
“With this executive order, we will make HBCUs a priority in the White House — an absolute priority,” Trump said. “A lot of people are going to be angry that they’re not a priority, but that’s OK.”
you're living in a fantasy world, an absolute fantasy world, if you think Obama was more divisive than Trump.
And I didn't say Trump was racist, I said that inclusive (rather than divisive) language angers racists. I think it's very telling that you interpreted that as "trump = racist" and jumped into action with unrelated talking points you just happened to have laying around. That's very shill-like behavior.
Even though I think he probably is racist, I don't know for sure. What I do know for sure is that he intentionally uses rage-bait and wedge issues to divide the public for his own benefit. This is clear and obvious.
That "evidence" up there is from a class of argumentation designed not to change anyone's mind, but to give supporters an excuse to put concerns of racism out of their head and stay with him. That's why you find it so convincing. you want to like him. Most of politics is like this.
How can I tell? Well it's flimsy to anyone who cares to look. For example, the only numbers cited compare two values that are very similar (within 10%) but compare two period separated by 8 years, with the former during an bad economy that Obama inherited from Bush (and fixed) and the later during a good economy that Trump inherited from Obama (and destroyed). Also, as I'm sure you know, executive orders don't increase funding for anything. Congress does that. What Trump did is what he always does. Some purely-performative stunt that does no actual good and is just designed to grab headlines. Moving an advisory board into the White House is a death sentence, not a benefit.
But of course none of this matters. Your tribe is your tribe, until death do you part. What you might want to consider is that your tribe will only survive if you cut out the cancer.
I won't be responding further. Have a nice day, and try not to catch the 'rona.
> you're living in a fantasy world, an absolute fantasy world, if you think Obama was more divisive than Trump.
You want to know how divisive Obama is? He literally put immigrant kids in cages and split them from their parents. And he even admitted to that [1]. But hey guess what, your fake news media showed it as Trump doing it and even attributed an image of kids being put in cages during Obama's tenure as that of being done in Trump's tenure. Obama literally effing said: "That is our direct message to the families in Central America. Do not send your children to the borders. If they do make it they'll get sent back. More importantly they may not make it". This is Obama for you. Ah but no one will make a fuss about it because he is the Nobel Peace Prize winner! How can he ever say anything that is wrong? He just can't. Only Trump can. Cos "Orange man bad".
> That "evidence" up there is from a class of argumentation designed not to change anyone's mind, but to give supporters an excuse to put concerns of racism out of their head and stay with him. That's why you find it so convincing. you want to like him. Most of politics is like this.
That is far fetched and ridiculous assertion. He had friends from all races before he ran for Presidency. People loved him. The press loved him. Everyone wanted to share a limelight with him. No one had any problems until he ran for Presidency. So either he was a racist or he isn't. You can't have it both ways. You are trying really hard to paint him as a racist. And then trying to diplomatically say that you did not mean that he is a racist. Nice try!
> For example, the only numbers cited compare two values that are very similar (within 10%) but compare two period separated by 8 years, with the former during an bad economy that Obama inherited from Bush (and fixed) and the later during a good economy that Trump inherited from Obama (and destroyed)
Are you kidding me? Trump had the best economy ever until Corona came knocking on the doors sent as a gift by China. And don't you dare try to paint it on Trump. The epicenter was in New York, run by a Democrat Governor who pushed this stupid policy of getting infected covid patients admitted to nursing homes and intermingle them with non-covid patients instead of making them go through a home quarantine. The majority of the Covid cases are from Democrat controlled states/districts with California contributing the most. How do I say that majority of the Covid cases are from Democrat controlled districts? Here is the research to back it up [2]
> Also, as I'm sure you know, executive orders don't increase funding for anything. Congress does that. What Trump did is what he always does. Some purely-performative stunt that does no actual good and is just designed to grab headlines. Moving an advisory board into the White House is a death sentence, not a benefit.
I stopped reading after this. The CARES Act was approved by Congress you absolute doofus. [3]
"The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was passed by Congress with overwhelming, bipartisan support and signed into law by President Trump on March 27th, 2020. This over $2 trillion economic relief package delivers on the Trump Administration’s commitment to protecting the American people from the public health and economic impacts of COVID-19."
> But of course none of this matters. Your tribe is your tribe, until death do you part. What you might want to consider is that your tribe will only survive if you cut out the cancer.
No. My tribe bothers about fact checking the media lies and find out the truth for ourselves. We don't just believe whatever the media says as gospel truth. Maybe you should start doing that. You can start that by learning about the CARES Act. It was passed by Congress. And yes, Trump's increase of 1.4 Billion $ in funding for HBCU is in the Act itself. It is called the HEER Fund. You can read abou...
> Inclusive language does not stop being inclusive just because it angers racists.
Now when Pandemic struck, Trump could have used it as an excuse to defund HBCUs right? That is what a racist would do. On the contrary, he delivered an additional $1.4 Billion through the CARES Act:
"This Administration is committed to the success of HBCUs, Minority Serving Institutions, and the students they serve. Each institution is unique and is an important part of this country's educational fabric," said Secretary DeVos. "By providing additional support to these important institutions, we can help ensure they emerge from this crisis stronger than before. I encourage these institutions, like all others, to use these funds to provide emergency grants to students during this challenging time, and to expand remote learning programs and build IT capacity. These are challenging times, but if we take this opportunity to transform higher education to meet the demands of the 21st century, our nation's students and higher education as a whole will be better for it."
Try listening to his addresses and speeches over the last couple years, and look at the policies he's implemented. Look at all the dishonest coverage, and yes his blunt way of talking doesn't help, but it's still hard not to conclude that the media is the primary source of him being considered divisive.
I've seen a bunch of his speeches and many if not most of his speeches made my blood boil and I don't even live in the US, I don't read/watch much US media and my local news though allegedly left leaning only reports factual news on him and US politics in general.
Can you give an example of him being respectful or understanding of democrat policy or politicians?
The only way the media is making Trump look divisive is by reporting his words.
He has called fascists good people. He has called Mexican immigrants rapists. He has called other countries shitholes. He has recognized the illegal move by Israel to have Jerusalem as their capital (one of the only countries in the world to do so!). He refuses to endorse BLM, one of the largest popular movements in decades, and has sent armed forces to crash peaceful protests. He has escalated deportations even more. He has continued and increased Obama's assassination programs in the middle east, even assassinating a high foreign dignitary on another country's soil. He has repeatedly downplayed and refused to manage the greatest medical and economic emergency in almost 100 years, with consequences that will be visible for the next 20 years.
Maybe the fascists one is a little ambiguous. I believe that he meant exactly what I said, but I admit that other rational people can believe otherwise.
But for the second one he has stated 'When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.' I don't know how you can read this other than as a statement that most Mexican immigrants are drug delaers/users, criminals or rapists.
Not a Trump fan but by "...rapists. And some, I assume, are good people" he no doubt meant some were rapist not all, which is factually correct. Trump says so much bad stuff that twisting his words only really weakens the opposition case.
That expression clearly implies that MOST immigrants are drug dealers, criminals, or rapists - and that he can only assume that a few of them must also be good people (he can't know for sure that any are, though, he can only assume it - implying he has only seen the drug dealers, criminals, and rapists).
Politicians like to be recognized as "great" and a the Nobel Peace Prize does appeal to many. Trump's desire is a good example. If you avoid controversial figures, you avoid using the prize as a motivator exactly where you need it.
For example, Begin/Sadaat and Arafat/Rabin. The first peace worked out. The second one didn't. But, all four of these people led a pretty violent life as militaristic and nationalistic leaders. They're all extremely controversial in the middle east, and in their own countries.
I definitely don't think avoiding divisive political figures is a good. thing. That said, I don't think he's earned one.
Out of curiosity, please list these recent peace deals.
If the UAE/Baharin normalization with Israel is on that list, them remove it. Getting two countries, who are not in conflict, to acknowledge each other and begin a formal relationship is definitely not a peace deal. A peace deal needs to involve the warring parties, which this did not.
That's a ridiculous amount of hair splitting. The normalization of diplomatic relations between Israel and major powers in the Middle East is a huge win for anyone who cares about peace.
It's astounding to me that people hate Trump so much that they refuse to recognize the historicity of this moment. We're seeing a fundamental change in the dynamics of a conflict that has been ongoing for generations, and there's no denying that a huge impetus for that change has been a rethinking of how to solve the problem by the Trump administration.
There have been many different attempts to solve the Israel/Palestine conflict and its many associated issues. Every US president has a go and having yet another attempt doesn’t win anyone awards until real results & a resolution between the parties involved in the conflict is achieved.
There was no big win here, Bahrain & UAE already had relationships with Israel, they were not in conflict. At best it can be described as possibly a small contributing factor to a future solution, if many other, much bigger and more relevant arrangements can be made. In reality not much has progressed. If anything, the few handshakes and promises made were a smokescreen for the unhappy status quo to go on as it was before.
I suspect the crux of the disagreement is whether the conflict is "Israel/Palestine", as you label it, or "Israel/Arab", as I suspect crusso labels it. The UAE/Bahrain peace deals are a big step for the latter, and not directly relevant to the former. So if you focus on the former, you are right that "not much has progressed", but that's a matter of what sort of progress you care about.
For a long time the two conflicts were sort of interlinked, in that the Palestinians were used as both a rallying point and a pawn in the more general Arab/Israel conflict. Part of the significance of the UAE/Bahrain deals is an ongoing de-linking of the two conflicts.
As a concrete example of a substantive changes that will actually affect the lives of a number of people that have happened recently in the larger Arab/Israel context, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain are now generally allowing flights from Israel through their airspace. This and the other recent liberalization steps are worth considering in the context of the situation described in https://ewerickson.substack.com/p/the-peace-deal-is-a-big-de..., where quite recently references to Israel were routinely censored in textbooks and encyclopedias in the UAE.
It's a big change from that to where we are now, and importantly it's a lot harder to sustain hostility against people you interact with on a daily basis than against a mysterious and vilified "other" that you never experience in person. So to the extent that easier travel leads to the travel actually happening, a practical effect of the sort of normalization of relations we are seeing could be a reduction in hostility "on the ground". Though that's likely to take a generation or three; these things are slow to change.
Now how much credit _Trump_ should get for any of this, I dunno; I wasn't in those conversations. But I also don't think people should claim that the changes here are not important just because they (for excellent reasons!) dislike Trump.
I have a fear the de-linking of the Israel/Palestine and the Israel/Arab conflicts will lead to Israel completely crush Palestine.
Which will be very unpalatable for the wider Arab community, and suddenly we will be back to square one.
I see no realistic solutions, unfortunately.
As for Trump, I know many who can acknowledge that thankfully he has not started any wars, yet see him as incredibly dangerous to the US, and by extension, the world. When the US shrugs, the world trembles.
no it is not. the deal was specifically a hedge for Israel's leadership against an unknown future for the trump administration in the US. they may as well have got Texas to sign a deal with Massachusetts.
We’re talking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict here. There is sustained and ongoing armed conflict between two or more groups. So yes, to win the peace prize for solving the Israeli-Palestine situation you have to have actually stop the conflict. There is no peace to maintain, and impossible to prevent a war that has already happened.
You're talking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Other people are talking about the wider Israeli-Arab conflict, which has been closer to a cold war in the last couple of decades (modulo various training/funding for proxy operations), but just as real as the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union. And worth defusing just like that one, though obviously it didn't have the "possible nuclear holocaust" issue going on.
Not listening and getting rid of Bolt? Anyone who was alive during Bush administration all around the world, and want world peace, cheered for the decision.
At the time that was given, Egypt and Israel had been formally in a state of war for over 30 years, and just a few years previously there had been a war in which thousands had died. It's not really a comparable situation.
Also, it was, quite reasonably, given to Sadat and Begin, not Carter.
Sure it's a comparable situation. If UAE/Bahrain had been independent countries in 1948 they'd have in an official state of war with Israel up until now as well.
Man, people are really buttmad because Trump didn't turn out to be as much of a warmonger as, say, Obama. Count your blessings; he's done fine on foreign policy where it counts.
One-upping Obama seems to be a primary motivation for Trump, but it’s not how awards work. Just because Obama got the peace prize when he shouldn’t have doesn’t mean Trump should also get it when he shouldn’t have. Two wrongs not making a right and all that.
And people like Henry Kissinger and Shimon Peres before that. I agree, this prize is a nonsense.
But then it's lacked credibility from the start. Nobel only funded it to help rebrand his anticipated legacy, to offset being remembered as "le marchand de la mort".
This is decidedly not true. You can do your own research as to why he was given it, as well as the process involved. To suggest he did nothing is a flat out lie.
Why don't you point out something he did rather than claiming it is a lie? If your claim is that he did something to deserve it, then the onus is on you to prove it.
Here is the first link I get returned for Obama Peace Prize"
The deadline for nominations was eleven days after his inauguration. What did he do in those eleven days — other than not being Mr. Bush — that made him merit the prize?
Seriously, when I saw the headline here on HN I thought, 'oh sheesh, what now?' and was pleasantly surprised to see it go to a deserving organisation this year. That is how poor their decision 11 years ago was: over a decade later and I view the award with suspicion.B
Time Person of the Year does sound like a prize, and I'd guess most people do think of it as a honour, but it's explicitly not that. The "Person of the Year" is some person, group, idea, or thing that Time Magazine decides "for better or for worse... has done the most to influence the events of the year" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Person_of_the_Year)
The prize going to political leaders has been a mixed bag. Aung San Suu Kyi didn't turn out, for a recent example. The Arafat/Rabin choice seems poor in retrospect, but ATT it would have seemed like a similar choice to Begin/Sadaat a few years earlier. The latter peace did work out.
None of these people were pure white snow. All four were aggressive, militaristic nationalists for all their life. They all made peace though, or tried.
These are the kinds of choices that make the Peace Prize actually active. Politicians seek recognition, usually. I think venerating them for peacefulness does actually motivate. Trump wants one, for example. If an opportunity was there, I think he might have actually taken it just to get the prize.
When I unexpectedly found myself responsible for feeding 100 people at imminent risk of starvation, half way around the world, WFP made it happen. Not only did they make an urgent delivery, they paved the way for a partnership with the Food and Agriculture Organization to set up a sustainable way for the people to feed themselves long-term (chickens: eggs to eat and to sell to buy other food). When talking about food security, even small numbers like this have an enormous impact, and it is truly mind-boggling to consider the overall impact of their work.
I was helping these people with a different type of need (non-life-threatening), then later the food security situation developed and nobody else seemed to be able/willing to help, so I changed my focus. As I imagine is often the case where WFP is concerned, the population was especially vulnerable due to pre-existing medical conditions.
> I recently attended a talk at Stanford by Walter Bradford Ellis, a too-little-known activist and writer on the issue of global poverty and world hunger.
122 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 189 ms ] threadThe Nobel Peace Prize was first awarded to an institution in 1904 - https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/1904/summary/ - so, to answer your question, 116 years ago.
It is unlikely to be awarded so frivolously again in the near future.
I highly recommend watching the movie Vice which gives a very telling report on these developments.
Some people say Bush behavior after his time in office is very typical for people that experienced severe gaslighting which manifests as a condition similar to Stockholm syndrome.
Bush was installed as President and kept in the dark because Dick Cheney had all foreign policies in his power portfolio.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6266538/
That you call it a "telling report" suggests you might also want to revisit your perspective on Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter.
It was still undeserved.
And prizes, well they’re not always awards for past actions but instead act as a financial and prestige boost for someone with potential to help them achieve more.
Good. Giving recognition to often overlooked efforts like this is completely deserved and worthy of this prize.
Malala does seem to be handling it well, so what do I know.
Member states may have "certain [...] rights deriving from the application of the Treaties to the Member State in question, including the voting rights of the representative of the government of that Member State in the Council" suspended, but "The obligations of the Member State in question under the Treaties shall in any case continue to be binding on that State." (Article 7 TEU)
The only way for a member state to cease being a member state is through the withdrawal process in Article 50 TEU (i.e. like Brexit).
In this day and age, a single person having this level of impact on the world is rare. They might be the figure head, but there is usually a team behind the figure head that finally implements it. The team also deserve the recognition.
[1] aka 'The Blue Helmets' https://i.ytimg.com/vi/d-2uMYBSL68/maxresdefault.jpg
Get Syria, Iran, Palestine and Israel to sign a peace agreement, now that would be an accomplishment.
Peace between Israel and Bahrain? Were they even fighting?
Edit: should have known this was a touchy subject...
HN mods should flag this discussion. Sad to see this type of divisive behavior but I'm not surprised. I'm personally excited to see UAE and Israel sitting at a table instead of flinging bombs but I've always been pro peace. Perhaps Obama supporters truly are not. Gross
In comparison, Bahrain and UAE are tiny countries that already had pretty normal relationship with Israel, just not very official.
So an achievement by POTUS, yes. But let's not oversell it.
(Not gonna comment more on this, politics make me nervous)
Redirecting you to my comment here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24737337
Did Obama do that? Then why was he given the Nobel Peace Prize? See that is why I said it is a joke! You guys have different standards for Obama and Trump. With Obama, he literally did not do anything and was given the Nobel Peace Prize. Even he was shocked when he heard it. But Trump did much more good than Obama and yet he hasn't been awarded. It is a joke!
Obama literally launched 12 new proxy wars during his entire tenure. Trump hasn't launched even one. Most US Presidents have been involved in some War or the other. Trump pulled troops out of Syria and Afghanistan. That is an accomplishment in itself.
As an Israeli, I tell you, this peace deal is a joke. We've had relations with the UAE for decades, they were never hostile to Israel. It was nothing more than a photo op for Netanyahu. The UAE and Bahrein didn't even send same level representatives. The sent foreign ministers for meeting our prime minister. Seems silly, but it tells how serious this accord is.
So a peace deal that changed nothing. And will only let some arms dealers pocket extra bucks. The Palestinians will still be under Israeli military rule. Israel citizens are still targeted by missiles and rockets. Violence is still prospering here. Peace is no closer.
Not a joke but a start. You have to start somewhere and this is the first step towards it.
> Seems silly, but it tells how serious this accord is.
Not silly at all. Peace Accords bind Nations. It has nothing to do with who was present at the signing ceremony. As long as it is accepted by the Nations involved it is as legitimate as they come.
> We've had relations with the UAE for decades, they were never hostile to Israel
Hostility is not just in terms of War. Hostility can even be in terms of who the country votes for in the UN on key issues that concerns Israel. If you look at it that way, India has never been hostile towards Israel. Never waged a War. But we always supported the Palestinian cause. That has started to change because of the development of Israel-India ties with India moving closer to Israel than ever before since 2014. It was because of Modi's visit to Israel and Netanyahu's visit to India. These things might seem silly but this is how diplomacy is carried out. How else would you think a solution can be achieved without waging a big War? Through diplomatic means. For Israel, truly making friends is a big criteria. It helps in putting diplomatic pressure on Israel's adversaries instead of resorting to military options! Right now Israel is using military options because it lacks unanimous support across the World. Nearly half of the countries in the World oppose Israel's moves. Through these Peace Accords, the countries that were on the fence when it came to Israel will now be more enthusiastically involved in achieving final Peace in the region. Because they are now stakeholders too. Once these countries (and many others) join in, pressure will build on Israel's adversaries to come to the table and negotiate a Peace deal. This is how it is done. One small step at a time.
The only genuine force withdrawal he did was in Syria, which will damage the US dramatically going forward because they completely abandoned their allies because Erdogan was able to sweet talk Donald Teump.
And the “peace deals” are a joke because they were signed between Israel and countries that were never hostile towards each other in the first place. UAE and Bahrain? It was simply Trump paying UAE/Bahrain your tax dollars for them to formally announce something that has always been the case, and Bibi doing the same so that Trump could continue to allow him to annex Palestinian land in peace to satisfy the most orthodox people in his country who are keeping him in power and saving him from prosecution.
And yeah, supplying arms to the Saudis so they can continue slaughtering the Yemenis and unilaterally breaking a peace deal so Iranians can die in massive numbers are not starting a war, but is causing civilian death tolls that are extremely high.
And sure, creating massive instability and allowing China to run free in most of Asia and Africa is also not starting a war, but is completely weakening the US and emboldening China in ways we couldn’t have imagined 5 years ago (for all his anti China talk, Trump has been remarkably weak against them, which isn’t surprising considering that until January the highlight of his tenure was gonna be a joke of a trade deal with China, and that he spent years without touching trade with China but slapping tariffs on all the US’s allies).
And of course, dismantling treaties with Russia, such as the open skies treaty for example, which was a completely one sided treaty in favor of the US and its allies only served to increase the risk of war.
And how about jumping into peace talks between S Korea and N Korea (S Korea’s new President was elected on the explicit platform of trying to restart peace discussions with N Korea) and derailing the entire process, by giving Kim exactly what he wanted...a photo op with the US president which he could promote within his own country, without getting anything in return (I guess the love letters from Kim to Donald Trump was something).
And we haven’t even gotten to the part where he and his have explicitly and implicitly supported and emboldened white supremacists in the US and Europe.
Donald Trump is best looked at as someone who never boiled the water, but definitely turned up the temperature so it’s hitting close to 190. He has taken decades of goodwill and trust, and burned it so he could claim minor victories which hurt the US massively but can be something for him to crow about.
It requires an extremely narrow way of looking at the world (at basically the PR level) to think Donald Teump is even close to being net positive for world peace.
This checks out - pretty much everything being posted by Trump fans in this thread is a rewording of the PR spin we see Twitter bots spamming everywhere.
https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-troops-are-deployed-m...
Comparing Trump's hateful rhetoric of his opposition to How obama conducted himself is a bad joke.
But I can't remember the last time a president didn't put troops somewhere. Ironically he's getting a lot of hate for pulling out of Syria/Germany.
Stop arguing in bad faith. Obama and Trump both have twitter accounts. Do you really want to start comparing the public record?
Please, explain to me how "LIBERATE MICHIGAN" is not divisive.
Public record is what they did when they were both in office for the people of the United States. I would definitely compare the two because Trump will win hands down. You are wanting to compare the two Twitter accounts. Tweets don't feed people. Tweets don't solve issues. Tweets don't make policies.
> Inclusive language does not stop being inclusive just because it angers racists.
Since you wanted to compare the two let us start with funding of Historically Black Colleges. Because a "racist" President would never increase funds for HBCUs. Instead, he would ensure that the funding is reduced. Obama in the first two years: $1.43B. Trump in first two years of his office: $1.58B [1].
"And even though we may not be able to fully trust numbers compiled by officials working under partisan directives, there are few budget outlines of any kind which suggest other than what too many of us fear; the guy we love to hate is showing historic love to historically black colleges."
[1]: https://hbcudigest.com/obama-vs-trump-who-did-more-for-hbcus...
“Oh, man … yesterday was great and historic. I’ve been around a long time and I’ve never seen so many black folks gathered in the Oval Office,” said Haynes, who was part of that photo opportunity. He also helped bring together the Trump administration and congressional leaders to discuss areas of collaboration between HBCUs and the federal government.
“With this executive order, we will make HBCUs a priority in the White House — an absolute priority,” Trump said. “A lot of people are going to be angry that they’re not a priority, but that’s OK.”
[2]: https://theundefeated.com/features/trump-signs-executive-ord...
And I didn't say Trump was racist, I said that inclusive (rather than divisive) language angers racists. I think it's very telling that you interpreted that as "trump = racist" and jumped into action with unrelated talking points you just happened to have laying around. That's very shill-like behavior.
Even though I think he probably is racist, I don't know for sure. What I do know for sure is that he intentionally uses rage-bait and wedge issues to divide the public for his own benefit. This is clear and obvious.
That "evidence" up there is from a class of argumentation designed not to change anyone's mind, but to give supporters an excuse to put concerns of racism out of their head and stay with him. That's why you find it so convincing. you want to like him. Most of politics is like this.
How can I tell? Well it's flimsy to anyone who cares to look. For example, the only numbers cited compare two values that are very similar (within 10%) but compare two period separated by 8 years, with the former during an bad economy that Obama inherited from Bush (and fixed) and the later during a good economy that Trump inherited from Obama (and destroyed). Also, as I'm sure you know, executive orders don't increase funding for anything. Congress does that. What Trump did is what he always does. Some purely-performative stunt that does no actual good and is just designed to grab headlines. Moving an advisory board into the White House is a death sentence, not a benefit.
But of course none of this matters. Your tribe is your tribe, until death do you part. What you might want to consider is that your tribe will only survive if you cut out the cancer.
I won't be responding further. Have a nice day, and try not to catch the 'rona.
You want to know how divisive Obama is? He literally put immigrant kids in cages and split them from their parents. And he even admitted to that [1]. But hey guess what, your fake news media showed it as Trump doing it and even attributed an image of kids being put in cages during Obama's tenure as that of being done in Trump's tenure. Obama literally effing said: "That is our direct message to the families in Central America. Do not send your children to the borders. If they do make it they'll get sent back. More importantly they may not make it". This is Obama for you. Ah but no one will make a fuss about it because he is the Nobel Peace Prize winner! How can he ever say anything that is wrong? He just can't. Only Trump can. Cos "Orange man bad".
> That "evidence" up there is from a class of argumentation designed not to change anyone's mind, but to give supporters an excuse to put concerns of racism out of their head and stay with him. That's why you find it so convincing. you want to like him. Most of politics is like this.
That is far fetched and ridiculous assertion. He had friends from all races before he ran for Presidency. People loved him. The press loved him. Everyone wanted to share a limelight with him. No one had any problems until he ran for Presidency. So either he was a racist or he isn't. You can't have it both ways. You are trying really hard to paint him as a racist. And then trying to diplomatically say that you did not mean that he is a racist. Nice try!
> For example, the only numbers cited compare two values that are very similar (within 10%) but compare two period separated by 8 years, with the former during an bad economy that Obama inherited from Bush (and fixed) and the later during a good economy that Trump inherited from Obama (and destroyed)
Are you kidding me? Trump had the best economy ever until Corona came knocking on the doors sent as a gift by China. And don't you dare try to paint it on Trump. The epicenter was in New York, run by a Democrat Governor who pushed this stupid policy of getting infected covid patients admitted to nursing homes and intermingle them with non-covid patients instead of making them go through a home quarantine. The majority of the Covid cases are from Democrat controlled states/districts with California contributing the most. How do I say that majority of the Covid cases are from Democrat controlled districts? Here is the research to back it up [2]
> Also, as I'm sure you know, executive orders don't increase funding for anything. Congress does that. What Trump did is what he always does. Some purely-performative stunt that does no actual good and is just designed to grab headlines. Moving an advisory board into the White House is a death sentence, not a benefit.
I stopped reading after this. The CARES Act was approved by Congress you absolute doofus. [3]
"The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was passed by Congress with overwhelming, bipartisan support and signed into law by President Trump on March 27th, 2020. This over $2 trillion economic relief package delivers on the Trump Administration’s commitment to protecting the American people from the public health and economic impacts of COVID-19."
> But of course none of this matters. Your tribe is your tribe, until death do you part. What you might want to consider is that your tribe will only survive if you cut out the cancer.
No. My tribe bothers about fact checking the media lies and find out the truth for ourselves. We don't just believe whatever the media says as gospel truth. Maybe you should start doing that. You can start that by learning about the CARES Act. It was passed by Congress. And yes, Trump's increase of 1.4 Billion $ in funding for HBCU is in the Act itself. It is called the HEER Fund. You can read abou...
Now when Pandemic struck, Trump could have used it as an excuse to defund HBCUs right? That is what a racist would do. On the contrary, he delivered an additional $1.4 Billion through the CARES Act:
"This Administration is committed to the success of HBCUs, Minority Serving Institutions, and the students they serve. Each institution is unique and is an important part of this country's educational fabric," said Secretary DeVos. "By providing additional support to these important institutions, we can help ensure they emerge from this crisis stronger than before. I encourage these institutions, like all others, to use these funds to provide emergency grants to students during this challenging time, and to expand remote learning programs and build IT capacity. These are challenging times, but if we take this opportunity to transform higher education to meet the demands of the 21st century, our nation's students and higher education as a whole will be better for it."
[1]: https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/secretary-devos-deliv...
Can you give an example of him being respectful or understanding of democrat policy or politicians?
He has called fascists good people. He has called Mexican immigrants rapists. He has called other countries shitholes. He has recognized the illegal move by Israel to have Jerusalem as their capital (one of the only countries in the world to do so!). He refuses to endorse BLM, one of the largest popular movements in decades, and has sent armed forces to crash peaceful protests. He has escalated deportations even more. He has continued and increased Obama's assassination programs in the middle east, even assassinating a high foreign dignitary on another country's soil. He has repeatedly downplayed and refused to manage the greatest medical and economic emergency in almost 100 years, with consequences that will be visible for the next 20 years.
I'm not a fan of Trump's personality, but on HN, can't we be intellectually honest about politics?
The statements above are not in fact what he said if you allow him any honest amount of context.
But for the second one he has stated 'When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.' I don't know how you can read this other than as a statement that most Mexican immigrants are drug delaers/users, criminals or rapists.
Politicians like to be recognized as "great" and a the Nobel Peace Prize does appeal to many. Trump's desire is a good example. If you avoid controversial figures, you avoid using the prize as a motivator exactly where you need it.
For example, Begin/Sadaat and Arafat/Rabin. The first peace worked out. The second one didn't. But, all four of these people led a pretty violent life as militaristic and nationalistic leaders. They're all extremely controversial in the middle east, and in their own countries.
I definitely don't think avoiding divisive political figures is a good. thing. That said, I don't think he's earned one.
If the UAE/Baharin normalization with Israel is on that list, them remove it. Getting two countries, who are not in conflict, to acknowledge each other and begin a formal relationship is definitely not a peace deal. A peace deal needs to involve the warring parties, which this did not.
It's astounding to me that people hate Trump so much that they refuse to recognize the historicity of this moment. We're seeing a fundamental change in the dynamics of a conflict that has been ongoing for generations, and there's no denying that a huge impetus for that change has been a rethinking of how to solve the problem by the Trump administration.
There was no big win here, Bahrain & UAE already had relationships with Israel, they were not in conflict. At best it can be described as possibly a small contributing factor to a future solution, if many other, much bigger and more relevant arrangements can be made. In reality not much has progressed. If anything, the few handshakes and promises made were a smokescreen for the unhappy status quo to go on as it was before.
For a long time the two conflicts were sort of interlinked, in that the Palestinians were used as both a rallying point and a pawn in the more general Arab/Israel conflict. Part of the significance of the UAE/Bahrain deals is an ongoing de-linking of the two conflicts.
As a concrete example of a substantive changes that will actually affect the lives of a number of people that have happened recently in the larger Arab/Israel context, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain are now generally allowing flights from Israel through their airspace. This and the other recent liberalization steps are worth considering in the context of the situation described in https://ewerickson.substack.com/p/the-peace-deal-is-a-big-de..., where quite recently references to Israel were routinely censored in textbooks and encyclopedias in the UAE.
It's a big change from that to where we are now, and importantly it's a lot harder to sustain hostility against people you interact with on a daily basis than against a mysterious and vilified "other" that you never experience in person. So to the extent that easier travel leads to the travel actually happening, a practical effect of the sort of normalization of relations we are seeing could be a reduction in hostility "on the ground". Though that's likely to take a generation or three; these things are slow to change.
Now how much credit _Trump_ should get for any of this, I dunno; I wasn't in those conversations. But I also don't think people should claim that the changes here are not important just because they (for excellent reasons!) dislike Trump.
Which will be very unpalatable for the wider Arab community, and suddenly we will be back to square one.
I see no realistic solutions, unfortunately.
As for Trump, I know many who can acknowledge that thankfully he has not started any wars, yet see him as incredibly dangerous to the US, and by extension, the world. When the US shrugs, the world trembles.
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/1978/ceremony-speech...
Also, it was, quite reasonably, given to Sadat and Begin, not Carter.
Man, people are really buttmad because Trump didn't turn out to be as much of a warmonger as, say, Obama. Count your blessings; he's done fine on foreign policy where it counts.
But then it's lacked credibility from the start. Nobel only funded it to help rebrand his anticipated legacy, to offset being remembered as "le marchand de la mort".
Here is the first link I get returned for Obama Peace Prize"
https://nypost.com/2019/11/02/why-obama-got-a-nobel-peace-pr...
It even says: “It is true, Obama did not do much before winning,” Lundestad, 74, a member of Norway’s Nobel Committee until 2014, told The Post.
Second link I got returned is this: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34277960
"Nobel secretary regrets Obama peace prize"
The deadline for nominations was eleven days after his inauguration. What did he do in those eleven days — other than not being Mr. Bush — that made him merit the prize?
Seriously, when I saw the headline here on HN I thought, 'oh sheesh, what now?' and was pleasantly surprised to see it go to a deserving organisation this year. That is how poor their decision 11 years ago was: over a decade later and I view the award with suspicion.B
Stalin and Hitler both graced the cover at various points in time.
The prize going to political leaders has been a mixed bag. Aung San Suu Kyi didn't turn out, for a recent example. The Arafat/Rabin choice seems poor in retrospect, but ATT it would have seemed like a similar choice to Begin/Sadaat a few years earlier. The latter peace did work out.
None of these people were pure white snow. All four were aggressive, militaristic nationalists for all their life. They all made peace though, or tried.
These are the kinds of choices that make the Peace Prize actually active. Politicians seek recognition, usually. I think venerating them for peacefulness does actually motivate. Trump wants one, for example. If an opportunity was there, I think he might have actually taken it just to get the prize.
> I recently attended a talk at Stanford by Walter Bradford Ellis, a too-little-known activist and writer on the issue of global poverty and world hunger.
http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/handwritingwall
https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/news/2019/10/14/WFP-Unite...