A Nobel Prize for “Peace without Peace!”
Published in Al-Ghad
(Jordan) on 11 October 2009
by Jihad Almheisen (link to original)
What has the U.S. president accomplished to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize? It is a recognized long-standing tradition that bestowing such an award takes place in recognition of the endeavors made towards peace, since the prize is usually awarded to someone who has put an end to wars and supported disarmament!
Has the president done any of that? On this basis, we can understand the differing reactions to Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize win and how it was met with both praise and sharp criticism. The majority of world leaders congratulated him urging for further progress towards nuclear disarmament. Obama displayed a great deal of objectivity when he candidly talked about his surprise at winning the Peace Prize, news he received with great humility, though he expressed reservation regarding the merit of his win when compared to previous winners.
Obama regards his win as a “call for action” against global warming and nuclear proliferation, in addition to resolving disputes and not ”recognition for his personal achievements.” Obama emphasized that it is “an endorsement of an American leadership on behalf of aspirations of people of all nations.”
President Obama considered this honor as “a strong call to action to everyone to make this vision a reality step by step.” But, in the same context, he doesn’t realize that winning the prize ought to serve as an incentive to move towards bringing peace in occupied Palestine as well as the complete withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Perhaps the words of Republican National Committee Chairman, Michael Steele, carried the harshest criticism commenting on the announcement of Obama’s prize win as “Americans wondered what Obama actually achieved.” Steele realized that “this decision was, unfortunately, based on Obama’s political star charisma.”
We, as Arabs, then have every right to know exactly what his plan is in bringing peace to a region where a bloody conflict is unfolding and where the U.S. war machine has invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, the U.S. is supplying the Israeli military with various types of weapons, that they use in attacking the Palestinians, and unlimited political support in accordance with the expansionist interests of the occupying nation.
The United States continues to play its historic role in the defense of the occupying State of Israel that continues to assure the whole world that it is not interested in achieving any peace. It is beyond any doubt that talk about a change in U.S. foreign policy concerning the Arab - Israeli conflict, with Democrats in office under the leadership of President Obama, will change the face of history is a talk that lacks reality and objectivity.
The alliance between the U.S. and the occupying state of Israel is far greater than the illusions we have about the positive role the Obama administration can play in the region--unless awarding President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize will change that relationship.
Has the president done any of that? On this basis, we can understand the differing reactions to Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize win and how it was met with both praise and sharp criticism. The majority of world leaders congratulated him urging for further progress towards nuclear disarmament. Obama displayed a great deal of objectivity when he candidly talked about his surprise at winning the Peace Prize, news he received with great humility, though he expressed reservation regarding the merit of his win when compared to previous winners.
Obama regards his win as a “call for action” against global warming and nuclear proliferation, in addition to resolving disputes and not ”recognition for his personal achievements.” Obama emphasized that it is “an endorsement of an American leadership on behalf of aspirations of people of all nations.”
President Obama considered this honor as “a strong call to action to everyone to make this vision a reality step by step.” But, in the same context, he doesn’t realize that winning the prize ought to serve as an incentive to move towards bringing peace in occupied Palestine as well as the complete withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Perhaps the words of Republican National Committee Chairman, Michael Steele, carried the harshest criticism commenting on the announcement of Obama’s prize win as “Americans wondered what Obama actually achieved.” Steele realized that “this decision was, unfortunately, based on Obama’s political star charisma.”
We, as Arabs, then have every right to know exactly what his plan is in bringing peace to a region where a bloody conflict is unfolding and where the U.S. war machine has invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, the U.S. is supplying the Israeli military with various types of weapons, that they use in attacking the Palestinians, and unlimited political support in accordance with the expansionist interests of the occupying nation.
The United States continues to play its historic role in the defense of the occupying State of Israel that continues to assure the whole world that it is not interested in achieving any peace. It is beyond any doubt that talk about a change in U.S. foreign policy concerning the Arab - Israeli conflict, with Democrats in office under the leadership of President Obama, will change the face of history is a talk that lacks reality and objectivity.
The alliance between the U.S. and the occupying state of Israel is far greater than the illusions we have about the positive role the Obama administration can play in the region--unless awarding President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize will change that relationship.
Previous article![]( "Everything Must Go!")
