The announcement this past Friday of President Obama winning this year's Nobel peace prize is just another example of the feverish pitch to which the world's cries for "peace, peace" have reached in recent years. With all due respect to the President, the prize comes to him, not for actually accomplishing anything to bring about lasting peace in the world, but rather for enunciating a "vision of a world free from nuclear arms" and for preferring "dialogue and negotiations...as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts." (Click here to read the actual press release.
On the one hand, I understand the awarding of the Prize to an American President under such circumstances. America still has as much if not more clout over world affairs than any other country. American still sets the tone for much of what happens in the rest of the world. Therefore, it is understandable that Obama could win such a prize based on tone-setting as opposed to actual achievement.
But exactly what tone is Obama setting? Well, for a clue, let's look at the presidency of Jimmy Carter--who is termed by at least one Israeli blogger as Obama's archetype. Carter, you may recall, proclaimed human rights to be "the soul of our foreign policy." He made "dialogue and negotiation" the lynchpin of his own foreign policy. The result? An emboldened Soviet Union invading Afghanistan; the Iranian student revolution; bloody revolutions in Nicaragua and El Salvador. Not so hefty results, eh?
You see, Carter's staunch belief in human rights combined with his insistence on "dialogue and negotiation" did nothing more than embolden the brutal regimes he wanted to "dialogue" with. And since he believed so strongly that "dialogue" would solve all the world's problems, then surely the ongoing strife between Israel and the Palestinians must...well, it must be Israel's fault. After all, the Palestinians are the oppressed "minority" (according to Carter-think), and therefore must be treated "humanely." Never mind their oft-repeated goal of a "one-state solution" at the expense of Israel. Never mind the fact that most of the Palestinian prisoners whose plight Carter has so loudly lamented were imprisoned because they had Israeli blood on their hands. It's all been Israel's fault since they don't want to, uh, "dialogue" with terrorists.
What about Obama? Well, we know this much:
*Obama has bent over backward to show the rest of the world that the United States has "turned over a new leaf."
*Obama has repeatedly called for "negotiations" with the maniacal Iranian dictator Ahmadinejad.
*Obama has called for the reinstatement of Honduran strongman (and Chavez disciple) Manuel Zelaya.
*Obama has repeatedly called out Israeli settlements as being the stumbling block toward Middle East peace.
*Obama has even linked the cessation of Israeli settlement-building to U.S. aid against Iran.
Pardon me if this seems like "Welcome Back, Carter."
Let me be very clear: I in no way consider it a compliment that the leader of my country (the United States) is being hailed as a peace leader by the same leaders and nations who blame Israel for the lack of peace in the world.
Former President Carter is also a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate. So is Kofi Annan, who has implicitly endorsed the Palestinian calls for an unconditional "right of return" and one-state solution. Could it be that the "peace" that the Nobel Committee clamors for is a "fool's peace?" Worse yet, could it be a false peace...kind of like the peace that the prophets of Jeremiah's day clamored for...the kind that says "peace, peace, when there is no peace" (Jeremiah 8:11)?
Agreed - there's a difference between talking about peace and actual peace-making which can require difficult action. Sadly, time will tell the story of a lack of taking action on the part of the US.
Posted by: Danielle Adams | October 15, 2009 at 05:23 PM