YORAM ETTINGER: ON THE COMMITTEE THAT GAVE OBAMA THE NOBEL PRIZE
http://yoramettinger.newsnet.co.il.
“Second Thought: A US-Israel Initiative,” Jerusalem
Obama’s Nobel Prize: A blatant attempt to Europeanize US policy
Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought”
Ynet, October 12, 2009
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3788584,00.html
http://yoramettinger.newsnet.co.il/Front/NewsNet/newspaper.asp
Tell me who are the committee members of the Nobel Prize for Peace, and I’ll tell you why it was awarded to President Obama.
According to Alfred Nobel’s will – and in contrast with other Nobel Prize committees – the members of the Nobel Prize for Peace committee are not experts, but politicians, members of the Norwegian Parliament.
The chairman of the committee, Thorbjorn Jagland, former Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Norway, is the Vice President and the Chairman of the Middle East Committee of the “Socialist International,” known for its opposition to US and Israeli policies. He is, also, the Chairman of the “Oslo Center for Peace and Human Rights,” which advocates a Dovish-Leftist world view, in cooperation with former President Jimmy Carter, who is close to President Obama and a role-model for the new Nobel Laureate.
Along with other members of the Committee, Jagland, represents a Parliament, which has called to recognize Hamas, to dialogue with Iran, to tolerate rogue regimes, to enhance ties with Moslem regimes, to condemn (what he terms) Islamophobia and to criticize systematically the policies of Washington (until Obama’s victory) and Jerusalem.
Awarding Obama the Nobel Peace Prize – in spite of the fact that the deadline for nominations was February 1, 10 days into Obama’s Administration – constitutes a transparent attempt by European politicians to bolster Obama’s determination in the global arena and improve Obama’s standing in the domestic arena. While Obama’s stock have risen internationally, it has deteriorated internally, in light of his lack of success in the areas of unemployment, taxes, budget deficit, health insurance reform, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Russia and Al-Qaida.
Jagland and his colleagues are determined to provide Obama with a tailwind. They consider him the most UN-driven American President since Woodrow Wilson, who established the League of Nations in 1920. They are encouraging him to sustain his efforts to endear the UN to the American people and legislators and to highlight the UN as the key formulator of international relations. They identify with – and are eager to advance – Obama’s world view, as they assess it: that the superpower role of the US is over; that moral equivalence – and not moral superiority – dominates relations between the US and non Western democracies; that the West must reconcile itself to the rise of the Moslem World; that the US must desist from unilateral political and military initiatives; that the US should advance multilateral initiatives which reflect values and attitudes shared by the majority of the UN membership; that there is no military option against Iran; that the battle against Islamic terrorism must be conducted diplomatically, economically and legally and not militarily; that there should not be a surge in Afghanistan; that retreat from Iraq should be accelerated; that the Palestinian issue is the core cause of Middle East turbulence and anti-Western Islamic terrorism, etc.
Awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama does not reflect respect, by the Nobel Price Committee, for the American President. It does not intend to express appreciation of the American legacy and American human and mega-billion dollar monetary sacrifice, which spared Europe defeat during World War I and World War II, produced victory over Communism and minimized Islamic terrorism in Europe. The Nobel Peace Prize Committee strives to improve Obama’s image among Americans and to leverage his presidency, in order to Europeanize US policy, thus accomplishing the “wet dream” of US critics, rivals and enemies. Reservations expressed by most of the US public, legislators and media suggests that the Norwegian politicians may relive the Biblical episode of Balaam in reverse: They came to bless, but ended up cursing.
Comments are closed.
