Why would giving a prize to people who aren't ravenous terrorists somehow dilute the outrage of giving one to someone who is?
And what exactly was the prize awarded for? Giving it the good old college try? I didn't see any actual results from the Oslo Accords. But Bush, who settled the hash of two dictatorships, one of whom had killed a million of his own citizens, does not deserve an award because he *GASP* used force.
The process of trying to make peace in the Middle East has been going on for decades. Through conservative and liberal Israeli leaders. Through Democratic and Republican presidents. And the process has been a miserable failure.
The only variable that has not been changed is Yasser Arafat, who sits forever like a bloated tick at the center of the Palestinian leadership, promoting and planning terror, authorizing mass murder, sucking hundreds of millions of his people's money off for his own personal use, and thwarting every attempt at settling the conflict.
Frankly, the sooner this bastard kicks off, or the Israelis finally fire a missile up his ass, the sooner the peace process has a chance of getting off square one.
Off Topic » in reply to Did you also lose all respect for Shimon Peres and Yitzak Rabin, who shared the Prize (**IN 1994**) with him?
That argument doesn't even make sense.
The whole thread (30 posts)
- Nomiations for the Nobel Peace Prize
- I lost all respect for the Nobel Peace Prize Committee when they gave the prize to Yassir Arafat, the World's leading terrorist. (n/t)
- Plenty of doubt
- Still hot?
- re: Not astonished
- That's an incredibly unfair generalization, Raoul (n/t)
- You're serious, aren't you? (n/t)
- re: Not astonished
- Still hot?