It was a crazy decision to award Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize before he had done anything. It devalued the prize at the time. It renders it utterly pointless now.
The 2009 award was yet another of those bizarre times when so much of humanity – particularly on the left, but not exclusively – get caught worshipping someone as almost a new Messiah when there is no evidence even to suggest basic competence. So it was when Obama was elected – purely because he was eloquent he was going to bring peace, democracy and fair play to the entire planet, apparently. I wonder how those who fell for the charisma and omitted to check for any competence feel now, as he blatantly endorses the IDF’s terror in Gaza?
It is all very well picking on Israel, but Israelis are informed by the most atrocious trauma in human history – they respond so outrageously and obviously disproportionately because they are, collectively, psychologically disturbed by that. The one country, in fact, that has both the power and psychological balance to end the horror in Gaza – right now – is the United States. And the one man who could order it is Barack Obama.
“We will reach out our hand, if you unclench your fist”, he said at his first inauguration. Get this – he was lying! He is no different from anyone else – interest before principle. It’s time to withdraw his prize, and place a black mark next to his place in history.
Ian James Parsley 
You’re absolutely right there. The Israelis are indeed collectively traumatised, and if they appear at times to inhabit a world of their own, it’s partly because the state of Israel was conceived as such, and for very understandable reasons. People in Europe very often have unrealistic expectations of American Presidents and of what is possible given the gridlock and lobbying inherent in the country’s political system. Apart from anything else, America is simply a lot more right-wing. As someone recently put it on another blog, even Kennedy was no Kennedy!
What you say is spot on, but I can’t help but think there must be even more to this.
Obama is himself from a repressed minority; himself has Muslim links; and has no electoral need to be populist.
So why can he not demonstrate a shred of moral repugnance, if nothing else, about hundreds of children being murdered by an “ally” which claims to be a civilised democracy?
Ian you can not in any way excuse the Israelis behaviour because of the events in Nazi occupied Europe. If anything this should make them all the more aware of what is and is not acceptable behaviour. Israel should never have been imposed on this region (the Jews larely left 2000 years ago and no longer had a reasonable claim) and has been an open sore ever since it was. Islam has never been friendly to ‘The West’, but the West’s and in particular the USA’s continued support for anuthing Israel does is a major source of the growing hatred shown to us.
I’d love to think that experiencing a trauma of the scale of the Holocaust would make me more aware of suffering and less inclined to inflict it. I’d love to think that – but I don’t think I’d be being honest, frankly.
The problem of course is that, in 2014, Israel has been imposed on the region and that is pretty much that. It’s not going to change.
This is precisely why the West needs to be much harder on Israel – it will secure Israel if it comes to it, but it should not endorse the savage murder of hundreds of children the way Obama has. This is partly because, as you say, it only secures another generation of hatred; but it’s mainly because it’s morally repugnant and two wrongs don’t make a right.
Barak Obama stood for change, hope, positivity and belief. Are you saying that people should turn their backs on change, and have voted for the old white guy instead, whoever he was.
No they didn’t – they voted for a ridiculous illusion.
They should have voted for the middle-aged woman instead…
I presume you mean Clinton and not Palin
đŸ™‚
Supporting clinton over obama is raceist