You assume that we're dealing with a rational person who has all their senses intact.
The deal would likely take months for the world to see if it's successful. He can get nominated next year if he keeps his own house peaceful too, else he should forget about a rational nomination + award of the Prize.
You're not dealing with anyone. There's a chap in the white house you don't like, and you want to have a pre-emptive go at him. Either he doesn't say anything, in which case you forget you said this. Or he is upset, in which case you feel justified in this. Or he's happy for the winner, in which case you feel like if he mentions it at all he must be upset.
If there's no way for you to change your stance based on any outcome, then it's pointless to say.
> I am actually dealing with a person though, and have set out a falsifiable case.
As have they? We have many tests for determining whether or not a given person's senses are or not intact.
> Same, but it's also true for anyone else.
Note I said show. If you happen to live in a world where you feel you've been devoid of such empathy then I feel for you, but such an environment of narcissism is hardly representative.
Trump might win it anyway. If he stares at Norway long enough and his minions find a way to harass the country (which is the MO these days), I have a feeling Norway will find a way to give him one (or two if he fancies), just like they found ways to not give it to many deserving people throughout its history, just because nations with convincing physical likeness would not have appreciated that.
What war did Trump create that you claim he's ending?
Because as far as I know, Israel's war on Gaza started before his term, and if the peace deal holds, Trump will be almost singlehandedly responsible for ending it.
If that's not worthy of a Nobel Peace prize, I truly don't know what else is.
> What war did Trump create that you claim he's ending?
He allowed Israel to break the last ceasefire immediately after the first phase of prisoner exchange was over, and to subsequently act with more brutality than even before. He started that chapter himself, whether through psychopatic indifference, narcisstic business fantasy of a future riviera with his name, or being a completely weak man who couldn't say no. Whatever the reason, he started the next 7 months of slaughter.
Hamas broke the ceasefire on Oct 7 and killed 1000+ Israelis. Israel is justified in breaking every ceasefire with Hamas until the end of time. You should not negotiate in good faith with terrorists. There should be peace with the Palestinians, but not with Hamas.
Your anger is understandable, but the only way to peace is indeed to negotiate, and the peace must be made between Israel and Hamas.
Before Israel's invasion, a minority supported Hamas' actions. Now, it will be very hard to find peace during the generational legacy of Israel's violence.
This is why overwhelming violence cannot lead to peace. Israel was justified in defending itself, but proportionality was necessary. As an alternative, I think Mossad have show themselves capable of disabling Hamas without heavy civlian casualties.
Hasbara bullet points with no effort. Logically falls apart upon the most basic of inspections. For example, if a one day attack justifies a disproportionate slaughter for 2 years, then what is a merely PROPORTIONATE response to 2 years of slaughter? What is a merely proportionate response to 85% of all buildings destroyed and all infrastruction being turned to rubble?
For bystanders, be aware that there is a lot of money to be made by defending Israel. Some people will take that money. Just a few citations below:
- Certain social media influencers being paid up to $7000 per post [1]
- Israel boosts propaganda funding by $150m to sway global opinion against genocide [2] [3]
- "[...] a firm called Bridges Partners LLC has been hired to manage an influencer network under a project code-named the “Esther Project.” " [4]
Even if the Gaza deal stick, I don't see how one could receive a nobel prize while deploying army and starting a war in their own country in cities/states/counties led by their political opponents.
The Obama one was pretty much for not being George W Bush (or, more to the point, not being controlled by Dick Cheney et al; Bush himself wasn't the _real_ problem there). They'd probably have given it to McCain if he'd won, too. People were _really_ worried about Bush and pals; by the end Cheney was pushing Bush to _start a war with Iran_.
I dunno. Do you? Does the Nobel prize have a history of shaping the future? Did winning the Nobel prize make Obama a different president? Was it supposed to?
To me, it seemed oddly aspirational, but maybe that's more often the case with the peace prize, too.
Also worth noting that the language in the press release [1] and facts page [2] makes it all sound like it was for things already achieved (although maybe that's at odds with "Inspires Hope for a Better Future"), and I'm skeptical of looking at year 1 achievements the job with arguably the most destructive power in the world.
It's not a hill I'd fight, let alone die, on, though. :)
If you wanted to avoid "misnominations", you'd be forced to wait until the career of the nominee is over (meaning in many cases: award it posthumously).
But the Nobel price explicitly tries to avoid that; hindsight is always gonna be better.
That’s not how it works. The prizes are not motivational but for achievement . Otherwise we should give the physics prize to some school kid in the hope of them discovering quantum gravity
Even Obama said basically those words when he got a call from his staff at 6AM announcing that he had won, and he said in the press conference that he didn't feel he deserved it (I looked this up in his 2020 book Promised Land).
Meanwhile for Trump... I'm pretty certain he wants it because a clever, charismatic, eloquent and beloved Black man got it...
Kissinger's decision is debatable but legit. That time it was not only about him. It was just pathetic from him to took it when his co-winner declined.
Price for Obama was probably miss-step but at least he was not desperately begging for it like Trump does.
I hope they’ve managed to convey this to the whitehouse.
It really didn’t help when they gave Obama the prize. Even he was embarrassed by it.
I think trump genuinely deserves the prize if peace in the Middle East achieved. However, I think it’s far more likely he’s being played for a fool by Israel as per Russia.
Trump does genuinely seem to want to avoid foreign wars, to his credit.
Norway is no doubt now bracing itself for tariffs or other retaliation. Hopefully they can dangle next year’s prize as worth waiting for.
> Thanks for sharing a video blaming Trump for the Ukraine war.
I had to do a double-take here - where exactly in the video is Ukraine featured?
> I don't recall Trump ordering American troops to invade Ukraine. Don't see how you're negating my point?
The entire premise of the video I linked is that Trump has no qualms having the US involved in military action, it befuddles me that you somehow seemed to missed this entirely.
> (fwiw, I am not a Trump supporter at all, I just try to see both sides and not hate trump because "he's the other team" - politics is not football)
Hate has nothing to do with it, you made a statement regarding his stance on foreign wars, I provided a source which I believe contextualizes that statement. You're welcome to disagree with the source or its contents or whatever, but throwing out pretty blatant red herrings and silly strawmen just looks silly.
Hmm, ok let's put the video aside as I watched the beginning of it and that's what I interpeted as saying. Maybe a lesson here is to make your case rather than dropping a link? And maybe the lesson for me is not to reply to low-quality replies. Perhaps we're even.
What exactly is your point? Trump clearly has qualmsin involving the US. Example: he was responsible for the withdrawal from Afghanistan.
> Biden was indeed president when America withdrew. Obviously. Unsure if you’re trolling. I guess so.
So they were both responsible - my (non-trolling) point.
> So, yes, it was trump who was responsible for the decision to withdraw from Afghanistan.
Also of interest is how he (trump) decided it should be done, and what ramifications this would have for how badly it would go. This is also covered in the video ;)
Really curious as to the downvotes here. I'll take it step by step:
- Obama was embassed by the peace prize. You can read this in his memoir, in his own words.
- If peace is achieved in the Middle East, it will be the greatest peace negotiation since the end of WW2. I'm unsure how anyone can dispute that.
- Netanyahu has a vested interested in prolonging war and crisis, as his own political survival is at stake. Context if anyone is not aware of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israeli_judicial_reform_p... - this makes it very unlikely the 20 point plan will be completed.
- Russia has indeed played Trump for a fool. Putin has bought plenty of time, they now have the upper hand in drone and missile attacks and Ukraine has lost the financial support of America. In return, Putin has conceded absolutely nothing.
- Trump does genuinely seem to want to avoid foreign wars. Good examples are his chastisement of Israel for breaking the earlier ceasefire, and its bombing of Qatar. He also did instigate negotiations with Russia, although he failed. His interventions in other conflicts are also genuine.
> I think trump genuinely deserves the prize if peace in the Middle East achieved
The current ceasefire proposal doesn't address the wider struggle for liberation of the indigenous people of Palestine, and as such it cannot be anything more than a temporary stop to a 2-year genocide against them. Settlements are still being built and fences around Palestinian houses are still being erected in the West Bank. Ethnic Cleansing continues. There is no peace until Israel undergoes the same transformation that Apartheid South Africa did when it turned into just South Africa (which requires efforts from the entire world to boycott it).
Ironically, this reply was the only one downvoted against my downvoted post, but I do agree that sketicism is the right attitude here.
Settlements are continuing in the West Bank, which are widely regarded as illegal by the international community.
There is little doubt amongst international experts that what Israel has done is genocide, and the parallels with South Africa are justified.
I'm hopeful that the genocide won't continue. However, I also think it's unlikely that peace will be achieved. Some form of violence or occupation is more likely, driven by Netanyahu's political interests.
