[netcan]

Yasser Arafat & Yitzhak Rabin were awarded it, its not clear if they intended to create a peace, but they did not. Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho were awarded it. Henry Kissinger meanwhile embarked on a major bombing campaign and Le Duc Tho declined the honour.

They've made premature or outright bad calls before.

[reuven]

I don't think that the Peace Prize is only meant for people who have made tangible changes in the amount of violence in the world. It's also a carrot that you can dangle in front of people to reward them for taking risks in the interest of reducing violence.

Rabin and Arafat (and Peres) tried, with the Oslo accords, to move toward a settlement of a long-standing, violent dispute. They didn't completely succeed. And indeed, you could argue (as many do) that the Oslo accords were a mistake. But they were willing to take risks in order to perhaps make things more peaceful for their people, and that's the sort of thing that the Nobel Committee wanted to reward.

Of course, now that I've described things in this way, maybe Snowden is an appropriate recipient...

[adharmad]

That sounds like the kindergarten definition of "Prize" - which is given to incentivize the person to do something as opposed to after he has actually achieved something of worth.

[netcan]

..assuming they were acting in good faith, which they have always accused eachother of doing. Kissinger and Le Duc Tho were certainly not acting in good faith. In any case, the official criteria is:

"done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.*

IMO it should be like the other Nobel Prizes, awarded later when the things have settled. The Science prizes were changed to include a lag allowing for discoveries to face scientific rigor for a while. I think they should adopt the same policy. Wait until a war ends before handing out a prize to those who end it.

[aroman]

>Yasser Arafat & Yitzhak Rabin were awarded it, its not clear if they intended to create a peace, but they did not.

I'm sorry, what? You aren't sure if Rabin and Arafat "intended to create peace"? What exactly do you think they were intending?

[Joeboy]

People on both sides of the Israel vs Palestine discourse tend to accuse the other side of acting in bad faith. And the various "Peace Processes" have generally been a result of pressure from outside the region.

[aroman]

>the various "Peace Processes" have generally been a result of pressure from outside the region.

What makes you say this? You don't think the Israelis and the Palestinians actually want peace (albeit on their own terms)?

[efuquen]

I think plenty Israelis want the Palestinians gone from Palestine and I think plenty Palestinians want Isreal erased from the map. When that is the goal of both parties, no I don't see them wanting peace.

Of course, we're making a huge generalization here, plenty of people on both sides don't have this as their goal and certainly want peace, which can only be achieved through coexistence. But when coexistence is not your goal, when the ideal terms for both parties is the dissolution of the other, then no; there can really be no peace.

Edit: btw I'm not really talking about the specifics of Yasser Arafat & Yitzhak Rabin listed by the OP, just your statement, which implied something more general then just those two.

[Dylan16807]

In an abstract sense they both want peace. That does not mean that they are actively working to reach a peaceful situation.

There is a very large gap between wanting something and being willing to truly prioritize it and sacrifice for it for the common good.

[Joeboy]

Of course they do, but clearly the Oslo Accords (for which Arafat and Rabin won their Nobel) were a product of US intervention. Concessions to the enemy are rarely a vote winner.