tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/shimon-peres-12851/articlesShimon Peres – The Conversation2023-11-01T12:36:33Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2164252023-11-01T12:36:33Z2023-11-01T12:36:33ZDespite his government’s failure to anticipate Hamas’ deadly attack, don’t count Netanyahu out politically<p>Since the brutal Hamas <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/sirens-warning-incoming-rockets-sound-around-gaza-near-tel-aviv-2023-10-07/">attack on Israel</a> on Oct. 7, 2023, news analysts and the public have focused on Israeli Prime Minister <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/29/world/middleeast/israel-intelligence-hamas-attack.html">Benjamin Netanyahu and his role in the intelligence failure</a> that preceded the attack, in which 1,400 people were killed. </p>
<p>In other parliamentary democracies, a failure of this magnitude would normally cost leaders their jobs, or at least spark challenges to their leadership.</p>
<p>But a closer look at Netanyahu’s political history shows that he is not like other leaders.</p>
<p>Over the last 24 years, he has been able not only to survive the rough and hard-hitting Israeli political arena, but to stay on top of it. Despite numerous setbacks and challenges that might well have terminated the career of other leaders, Netanyahu has <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/benjamin-netanyahu-israel-prime-minister-sworn-in-right-wing-rcna63616">come back to lead his party</a> and take the prime minister’s office, again and again. His first term, 1996 to 1999, ended in a humiliating defeat. But he returned to his party’s leadership at the end of 2005. Between 2009 and 2023, he was able to <a href="https://apnews.com/article/politics-israel-government-benjamin-netanyahu-west-bank-2aadcdf4de57c54c59e619478bac63dc">form a coalition government five times</a>.</p>
<p>It is possible that this time might be different, and that the government’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/deadliest-day-for-jews-since-the-holocaust-spurs-a-crisis-of-confidence-in-the-idea-of-israel-and-its-possible-renewal-215507">failure has been so devastating for Israelis</a> that Netanyahu will be unable to recover. A week after the Israel-Hamas war began, <a href="https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-767880">a small majority</a> of Israelis wanted Netanyahu to resign. </p>
<p>But based on his history, he might survive this scandal.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/556899/original/file-20231031-21-gylbxj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A Time Magazine cover with a photo of a man's face, and a headline saying " src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/556899/original/file-20231031-21-gylbxj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/556899/original/file-20231031-21-gylbxj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/556899/original/file-20231031-21-gylbxj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/556899/original/file-20231031-21-gylbxj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/556899/original/file-20231031-21-gylbxj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/556899/original/file-20231031-21-gylbxj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/556899/original/file-20231031-21-gylbxj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In 2012, Time ran a cover story that called Benjamin Netanyahu ‘King Bibi.’</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20120528,00.html">Screenshot, Time Magazine</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Mr. Security?</h2>
<p><a href="http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9605/31/netanyahu.wins/">Netanyahu won his first election in May 1996</a>, beating Labor leader Shimon Peres by a narrow margin. It was the country’s first split-ticket vote, in which citizens voted for both a party to represent them in parliament and for an individual for prime minister. Netanyahu won by <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/31/world/israeli-vote-overview-netanyahu-set-lead-israel-seek-peace-with-security.html">claiming</a> he could better protect Israelis in the wake of a surge of terrorist attacks in February and March of that year that had killed over 50 citizens. </p>
<p>Since then, commentators, especially those abroad, have referred to him as something like a protector of Israel. In 2012, Time ran a cover story that called Netanyahu “King Bibi.” A post-Oct. 7 <a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/10/17/israel-hamas-gaza-benjamin-netanyahu-economy-security-polls/">piece in Foreign Policy</a> referred to him as “Mr. Security,” a name it was said that Israelis themselves used. </p>
<p>Netanyahu has never presided over any military or diplomatic process that strengthened Israeli security; quite the opposite. His tenures have been marked by several <a href="https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-09-25-mn-47381-story.html">intelligence</a> <a href="http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9710/06/israel.netanyahu/">failures</a> and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/10/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-security-failure.html">miscalculations</a>, by the Oct. 7 attack and an inconclusive war with Hamas in 2014. He was <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/03/world/middleeast/netanyahu-corruption-charges-israel.html">indicted on corruption charges</a> in 2019, but his <a href="https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-08-06/ty-article/.premium/judges-in-netanyahus-corruption-trial-deny-reluctance-say-length-is-due-to-complexity/00000189-cb38-d9f3-a1cd-ffbb2e8e0000">trial has yet to conclude</a>. </p>
<p>As a <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/politics-in-israel-governing-a-complex-society-9780199335060?cc=us&lang=en&">scholar of Israeli politics</a>, I have watched Netanyahu ride a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/03/19/the-weakening-of-the-israeli-left/">right-wing</a> <a href="https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/israel/2015-03-24/israels-right-turn">wave</a> to win power several times since the mid-1990s. </p>
<p>It’s clear to me that his ability to win elections is rooted not in his own political foresight and reputation as a successful defender of Israel, but more a function of Israel’s political system and his ability to make wild promises to prospective coalition partners. </p>
<h2>Route to power</h2>
<p>Netanyahu’s political successes have often been the result of the public’s apparent decision that he is the best out of a set of poor choices. </p>
<p>The Israeli electoral system produces <a href="https://en.idi.org.il/articles/25792">fragmented outcomes</a>. It is common for dozens of parties to run in an election, and for 10 to win representation in the Knesset, Israel’s legislative body. A government is formed through bargaining between the parties, until a coalition obtains 61 votes – a simple majority – in the 120-seat Knesset.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://en.idi.org.il/israeli-elections-and-parties/">existence of so many parties</a>, representing a range of views on religion in the public sphere, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Zionism and the relationship between the Jewish state and its Arab citizens, gives the person who aims to be prime minister options when trying to cobble together a coalition. </p>
<p>Because all the parties know this, and they know they can threaten to join a government under someone else, promises must be made to these parties by would-be leaders to secure their place in the government and their support in the Knesset.</p>
<p>These promises can include offering ministerial posts to leaders of the parties or commitments to provide more government funding to certain religious communities. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/556921/original/file-20231031-15-sqqufg.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A group of women in the nighttime protesting and carrying signs that say things like 'Cease fire Hostage deal.'" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/556921/original/file-20231031-15-sqqufg.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/556921/original/file-20231031-15-sqqufg.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/556921/original/file-20231031-15-sqqufg.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/556921/original/file-20231031-15-sqqufg.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/556921/original/file-20231031-15-sqqufg.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/556921/original/file-20231031-15-sqqufg.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/556921/original/file-20231031-15-sqqufg.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Protesters in Tel Aviv, Israel, call for a cease-fire, a hostage deal and, in Hebrew, Benjamin Netanyahu’s resignation, on Oct. 28, 2023.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/protestors-call-for-a-cease-fire-and-netanyahus-resignation-news-photo/1761903039?adppopup=true">Alexi J. Rosenfeld/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Promises made</h2>
<p>Netanyahu has excelled at making promises in order to stay in or gain power, even when they have gone against what the <a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/28-of-israelis-considering-leaving-the-country-amid-judicial-upheaval-poll/">majority of Israelis want</a> and <a href="https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/haaretz-today/2022-09-15/ty-article/.premium/netanyahu-is-a-serial-promise-breaker-but-this-one-hell-have-to-keep/00000183-41b9-dfd0-a5f7-4fbb8fab0000">his own prior commitments</a>.</p>
<p>The most egregious example occurred after the 2022 elections when Netanyahu formed a government with far-right and <a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/ben-gvirs-policy-goals-going-to-extremes-even-europes-far-right-wont-touch/">fascist parties</a>. Some of his promises included <a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/defense-minister-pans-ben-gvirs-proposed-national-guard-as-a-private-militia/">creating a militia</a> under the control of <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/02/27/itamar-ben-gvir-israels-minister-of-chaos">Itamar Ben Gvir</a>, leader of the Otzma Yehudit party, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/netanyahus-party-signs-first-coalition-deal-with-israeli-far-right-2022-11-25/">widely known for its anti-Arab racism</a>. </p>
<p>Another promise Netanyahu made to entice Knesset members to join him in a coalition was to overhaul the judiciary, reducing its independence and making it a tool of the government. <a href="https://theconversation.com/israel-enters-a-dangerous-period-public-protests-swell-over-netanyahus-plan-to-limit-the-power-of-the-israeli-supreme-court-199917">This promise became legislation and sparked</a> what has become <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-65086871">weekly protests against the policy</a> as a threat to Israeli democracy, drawing hundreds of thousands of Israelis.</p>
<p>Netanyahu’s increasingly extreme promises indicate a desperation born out of fear of losing power. This is not surprising, since in every election since 2009, his party <a href="https://en.idi.org.il/israeli-elections-and-parties/">barely got a plurality of votes</a>. If he could not form a majority coalition, another party and its leader could. </p>
<p>The highest percentage of the popular vote his Likud party has ever won was 29%, <a href="https://www.electionguide.org/elections/id/3449/">in 2020</a>. Even then, Likud’s main rival, the Blue and White Party, won 27% of the vote. In other elections since then, <a href="https://en.idi.org.il/israeli-elections-and-parties/">Likud has won around 24% or 25%</a>. </p>
<p>Netanyahu himself is more popular than his party, but not by much. In most of the elections that Netanyahu competed in as head of Likud, results commonly showed that a little more than <a href="https://en.idi.org.il/israeli-elections-and-parties/">half of voters supported him over his closest rivals</a>.</p>
<p>In part, this support stems from his long years in politics. Netanyahu is a <a href="https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/anshel-pfeffer/bibi/9780465097821/?lens=basic-books">well-established</a> figure, so there is some comfort for voters in choosing a candidate who is well known. </p>
<p>As head of Likud, he has been leader of one of the country’s <a href="https://www.berghahnjournals.com/view/journals/israel-studies-review/33/3/isr330305.xml?utm_source=TrendMD&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Anthropology_of_the_Middle_East_TrendMD_0">oldest major parties</a>. And though its share of seats has dropped over the years, Likud remains firmly entrenched in Israel’s political constellation. It can be difficult for observers to disentangle support for Netanyahu from support for the party. </p>
<p>Finally, no Israel government has lasted <a href="https://en.idi.org.il/israeli-elections-and-parties/">its full four-year term since 1988</a>, forcing new elections to be called. There is a constant fear among coalition partners that a new election will weaken them. Supporting Netanyahu and Likud has often been the best way to avoid another election.</p>
<p>It may be, then, that contrary to expectations, Netanyahu will be able to outlast disasters as he has before, and remain a player in Israeli politics.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/216425/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brent E Sasley has received funding from the University of Texas at Arlington.</span></em></p>Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has presided over disasters before – and remained in power. But is the intelligence failure preceding the Hamas attack so big that this time he won’t?Brent E Sasley, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Texas at ArlingtonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2133402023-10-04T12:33:07Z2023-10-04T12:33:07ZThe Nobel Peace Prize offers no guarantee its winners actually create peace, or make it last<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/551816/original/file-20231003-21-46u90x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=1091%2C0%2C71%2C233&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Norwegian Nobel Committee is set to announce its annual winner for the peace prize on Friday, Oct. 6, 2023. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/plaque-depicting-alfred-nobel-at-the-nobel-peace-prize-news-photo/83979203?adppopup=true">Chris Jackson/Getty Images </a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Norwegian Nobel Committee is <a href="https://www.nobelpeaceprize.org/presse/arrangementer/accreditation-announcement-nobel-peace-prize-2023?instance=0">set to announce</a> the recipient of the annual Nobel Peace Prize on Oct. 6, 2023, drawing from a pool of 351 nominees. </p>
<p>Environmental activist Greta Thunberg and Ukrainian Prime Minister Volodymyr Zelenskyy <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/how-is-nobel-peace-prize-decided-2023-09-29/">are reportedly two of the nominees</a>, among political dissidents, leaders and human rights activists who are up for the prize. The winner will receive a medal, US$994,000 and global recognition.</p>
<p>I have <a href="https://www.sandiego.edu/peace/about/biography.php?profile_id=2091">worked in the peace-building field</a> for over 20 years to support societies as they work to prevent violence and end wars. Each year, I think I should look forward to this moment, when a champion of peace is celebrated on the world stage. But given the track record of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, I always feel some dread before the peace prize announcement. Will the award celebrate a true peace builder, or a politician that just happened to sign a peace agreement? Will it celebrate a true and historic achievement, or what happens to be in the newspaper right now? </p>
<h2>A mixed history</h2>
<p>Admittedly, the <a href="https://www.nobelprize.org/about/the-norwegian-nobel-committee/">Norwegian Nobel Committee</a> – made up of five Norwegians, mostly former politicians, whom the Norwegian parliament appoints for a six-year term – has made some great peace prize selections over the years. </p>
<p>South African politician Nelson Mandela, for example, <a href="https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/1993/summary/#">won the prize</a> in 1993 for his work to help end apartheid.</p>
<p>And Leymah Gbowee, an activist who helped bring peace to Liberia, <a href="https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2011/gbowee/facts/">won the award</a> in 2011, alongside former Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf and Yemeni women’s rights activist Tawakkul Karman.</p>
<p>Gbowee brought Christian and Muslim women together to end Liberia’s devastating 14-year civil war by using creative tactics – <a href="https://qz.com/958346/history-shows-that-sex-strikes-are-a-surprisingly-effective-strategy-for-political-change">including a sex strike</a>, in which Liberian women promised to withhold sex from their husbands until a peace agreement was signed. </p>
<p>Despite the prize’s mixed track record – and <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/end-nobel-peace-prize/616300/">despite calls by some to stop giving the award</a> – I think the Nobel Peace Prize should continue. War remains one of humankind’s greatest problems, and peace is still a human achievement worth celebrating.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/551809/original/file-20231003-25-gozy93.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Leymah Gbowee wears a white shirt and marches with a long line of women, also wearing white." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/551809/original/file-20231003-25-gozy93.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/551809/original/file-20231003-25-gozy93.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=376&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/551809/original/file-20231003-25-gozy93.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=376&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/551809/original/file-20231003-25-gozy93.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=376&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/551809/original/file-20231003-25-gozy93.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=472&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/551809/original/file-20231003-25-gozy93.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=472&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/551809/original/file-20231003-25-gozy93.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=472&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Leymah Gbowee, who was a joint Nobel Peace Prize winner in 2011, marches with women’s rights activists to pray for peace in Monrovia, Liberia.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/liberias-joint-nobel-peace-prize-2011-leymah-gbowee-and-news-photo/1250772202?adppopup=true">Issouf Sanogo/AFP via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The prize can be off-mark</h2>
<p>The Nobel Committee, in my view, does not always give the peace prize to people who actually deserve the recognition. And the prize is not a precursor to peace actually happening, or lasting. </p>
<p>Some previous awardees are head-scratchers, for peace experts and casual observers and recipients alike. For example, former President Barack Obama said that <a href="https://www.npr.org/2009/10/09/113677764/obama-surprised-at-winning-nobel-peace-prize">he was even surprised by the award</a> when he won it in 2009.</p>
<p>The committee gave him the award “based on his extraordinary efforts to <a href="https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2009/press-release/">strengthen international diplomacy</a> and cooperation between peoples.” However, Obama had been in office for less than a year when he got the prize, which is likely not enough time to do either of these things.</p>
<p>Geir Lundestad, a former secretary of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, wrote in his 2019 memoir that he had hoped the award “<a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34277960">would strengthen Mr. Obama</a>” to pursue nuclear disarmament, but in the end he said that he regretted giving Obama the award. </p>
<p>Others selections, such as Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, have proved embarrassing in hindsight. </p>
<p>Just one year after winning the award in 2019, Abiy ordered a large-scale military offensive against the Tigray People’s Liberation Front, <a href="https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/conflict-ethiopia">a controversial political party</a> that represents the northern Tigray region of Ethiopia. </p>
<p>The war between the Ethiopian military and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front resulted in tens of thousands of civilian deaths before it ended in November 2022. A <a href="https://apnews.com/article/health-united-nations-africa-ethiopia-eritrea-dcb992b8389069490c8b44357500cabe">United Nations investigation</a> found in 2022 that all sides in the conflict have committed <a href="https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/war-crimes.shtml">war crimes</a> against civilians.</p>
<p>Berit Reiss-Andersen, the chair of the Nobel award committee, later said in 2022 that Ahmed “has a special responsibility to end the conflict and contribute to peace.” </p>
<p>Unsurprisingly, such statements encouraging peace – alongside the Nobel Prize itself – have had little effect on how prize winners act. The factors that drive war or peace are complex and are unlikely to be significantly influenced by an annual award given in Norway.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/551815/original/file-20231003-19-ful84d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A picture of the 2019 Nobel Peace Prize laureate Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed Ali is on display at the Nobel Peace Center in Oslo, alongside other framed photos of people in a dark room with blue lighting." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/551815/original/file-20231003-19-ful84d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/551815/original/file-20231003-19-ful84d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=477&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/551815/original/file-20231003-19-ful84d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=477&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/551815/original/file-20231003-19-ful84d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=477&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/551815/original/file-20231003-19-ful84d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=599&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/551815/original/file-20231003-19-ful84d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=599&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/551815/original/file-20231003-19-ful84d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=599&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A photo of Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed is on display at the Nobel Peace Center in Oslo, Norway, recognizing winners of the Nobel Peace Prize.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/picture-of-the-2019-nobel-peace-prize-laureate-ethiopian-news-photo/1175337675?adppopup=true">Stan Lysberg Solum/NTB Scanpix/AFP via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Peace is long term</h2>
<p>Other Nobel awarding committees seem to understand that it takes a significant amount of time to judge whether an achievement truly merits the prize.</p>
<p>Both physicists and economists wait an average of 23 years to <a href="https://www.nature.com/nature-index/news/chemistry-fastest-path-nobel-prize">receive an award</a> after they achieve their award-winning work. </p>
<p>In contrast, American diplomat Henry Kissinger won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1973 for negotiating a <a href="https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/cease-fire-goes-into-effect">cease-fire in Vietnam that same year</a>. The cease-fire began to falter almost immediately, and Saigon, the capital of South Vietnam, fell to the North Vietnamese army in May 1975. Kissinger then unsuccessfully tried to return the prize, noting that <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/world/kissinger-nobel-peace-prize-vietnam-war-b2261492.html">“peace we sought through negotiations has been overturned by force</a>.”</p>
<p>Similarly, the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli political leaders Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin won the peace prize in 1994, one year after they signed the <a href="https://peacemaker.un.org/israelopt-osloaccord93">Oslo Accords,</a> a series of agreements that set up Palestinian self-governance for the West Bank and Gaza. But by 2000, Palestinians had launched the <a href="https://www.britannica.com/place/Israel/The-second-intifada">second intifada</a>, and widespread violence returned to the region.</p>
<p>The Nobel committee tends to award prizes to those involved in current events and doesn’t award prizes long after those events have happened. But some awards have stood the test of time, in part because they were given to individuals following long struggles.</p>
<p>Mandela, for instance, won the prize 53 years after his expulsion from university for joining a protest. This sparked <a href="https://southafrica-info.com/history/nelson-mandela-timeline/">a 53-yearlong career in activism and politics</a> that included 27 years of incarceration as a political prisoner by the government he had fought against – and later led as president.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/551831/original/file-20231003-21-fn9thz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Yaser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzak Rabin stand in a row and show an open book with a gold Nobel peace prize in it." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/551831/original/file-20231003-21-fn9thz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/551831/original/file-20231003-21-fn9thz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/551831/original/file-20231003-21-fn9thz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/551831/original/file-20231003-21-fn9thz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/551831/original/file-20231003-21-fn9thz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/551831/original/file-20231003-21-fn9thz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/551831/original/file-20231003-21-fn9thz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Palestinian leader Yaser Arafat, left, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, center, and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin display their joint Nobel Peace Prizes in 1994.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/in-this-handout-from-the-government-press-office-israeli-news-photo/51663003?adppopup=true">Government Press Office via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>It’s about peace</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.nobelprize.org/alfred-nobel/alfred-nobels-life-and-work/">Swedish scientist Alfred Nobel</a> – the founder of the Nobel awards – said the Nobel Peace Prize should go to the person “who has done the most or best to advance fellowship among nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and the establishment and promotion of peace congresses.” </p>
<p>The language is somewhat archaic, but the message is clear – the peace prize was designed to be about stopping war and promoting peace. </p>
<p>However, in the last 20 years, the peace prize has been awarded to those working on a variety of issues, including <a href="https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2021/summary/">freedom of expression</a>, <a href="https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2014/summary/">children’s education</a> and <a href="https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2007/summary/">climate change</a>.</p>
<p>All of these are important issues that require more support and recognition – but it is not the case that freedom of expression or climate change adaptation directly leads to peace.</p>
<p>In my view, there are more than enough problems and deadly conflicts in the world whose solutions merit the award of the Nobel Peace Prize as a reflection of its original intent – to acknowledge attempts aimed at ending the scourge of war and building a sustainable peace.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/213340/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Blum does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Nobel Peace Prize has recognized some legendary leaders and peace activists, but it has a mixed track record of recognizing people who actually deserve the prize.Andrew Blum, Executive Director and Professor of Practice at Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace, University of San DiegoLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1904922022-09-16T12:17:56Z2022-09-16T12:17:56ZQueen Elizabeth II ascended to the throne at a time of deep religious divisions and worked to bring tolerance<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/484357/original/file-20220913-4826-8wgrqe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=5%2C0%2C1941%2C1339&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">In her efforts to build a new relationship with the Catholic Church, Queen Elizabeth II had interactions with several pontiffs. She is seen here with Pope John Paul II. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/BritainQueensReignPhotoGallery/bc023d4fdcf446b1a44081e39bf7facd/photo?Query=queen%20Pope%20John%20Paul%20II&mediaType=photo&sortBy=&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=48&currentItemNo=20">AP Photo/Alessandro Bianchi, Pool, File</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Thousands of Christian cathedrals and churches <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/06/13/1104560863/queen-elizabeth-ii-is-the-second-longest-reigning-monarch-in-history">rang their bells</a> for an hour at noon the day after Queen Elizabeth II died in honor of the 96-year-old monarch and her 70 years of service as queen of the United Kingdom.</p>
<p>The ringing of church bells across the country on the death of the monarch is a custom dating back to the early 13th century in Great Britain. As an <a href="https://college.holycross.edu//faculty/jpierce/">expert in medieval liturgy</a> and longtime participant in official <a href="https://www.usccb.org/committees/ecumenical-interreligious-affairs/interreligious">dialogue between</a> the Episcopal Church – a member of the community of global Anglican churches – and the Roman Catholic Church in the United States, the sound had a special poignance for me, and I thought of the queen’s lifelong commitment to British religious life. </p>
<p>Based on her Christian faith, the Queen encouraged dialogue and tolerance among different Christian churches and with other religions as well. This is especially true of the two oldest faiths in Great Britain: Catholicism and Judaism. </p>
<p>But to appreciate the significance of her efforts, it is necessary to understand the complicated history of these religions in the United Kingdom. </p>
<h2>‘Defender of the Faith’</h2>
<p>For centuries, English monarchs reigned as king or queen of England. But since the 16th century, they have also <a href="https://religionnews.com/2022/06/03/elizabeth-iis-70-years-as-head-of-the-church-of-england/">held the titles</a> Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England. </p>
<p>King Henry VIII received the title <a href="https://blogs.bl.uk/digitisedmanuscripts/2020/07/defender-of-the-faith.html">Defender of the Faith</a> from Pope Leo X, then head of the Catholic Church, in 1521 after the king published a rebuttal of the ideas of Martin Luther, whose reforms launched the Protestant Reformation. Henry retained this title even after later breaking from the authority of the pope, titling himself Head of the Church in England. </p>
<p>With the exception of his Catholic successor – his daughter Mary I – all British monarchs have retained this title.</p>
<p>In the 17th century, some of the kings of England became personally sympathetic toward Catholicism. This was so unpopular that in 1689, <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/private-lives/religion/overview/catholicsnonconformists-/#">Parliament passed a Bill of Rights</a>, forbidding Catholics from ascending to the throne; it remains in force today. Until the 2013 Succession to the Crown Act, <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-32073399">sovereigns were forbidden</a> to even marry Catholics.</p>
<p>After the 1707 passage of the <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/heritage/articlesofunion.pdf">Articles of Union</a>, these kings and queens reigned over an expanded realm consisting of England, Scotland and Ireland – the United Kingdom – but retained leadership only of the Church of England, the Anglican Church.</p>
<p>Most Irish were Catholic, while the <a href="https://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/about-us/our-structure">Church of Scotland was Presbyterian</a>. This Protestant church eliminated the ancient office of bishop and placed leadership in the hands of ordinary pastors, called presbyters or elders. </p>
<p>In the Articles of Union, the British monarch <a href="https://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/about-us/church-law/church-constitution#article1">guaranteed the rights of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland</a>, and every monarch since has sworn an oath to uphold them upon ascending to the throne.</p>
<p>No such protection was guaranteed to any other church or religion.</p>
<h2>Continuing problems in Catholic Ireland</h2>
<p>In 1649, King Charles I, who favored Catholicism, was <a href="https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/british-civil-wars">deposed and executed by Parliament</a> after a bloody civil war. The <a href="https://academic.oup.com/book/40084/chapter-abstract/341041967?redirectedFrom=fulltext">invasion of Catholic Ireland</a> by Oliver Cromwell, a former member of Parliament, followed soon after, resulting in brutal massacres. Although the English monarchy was <a href="https://academic.oup.com/book/430/chapter-abstract/135223697?redirectedFrom=fulltext">restored in England and Ireland</a> in 1660, restrictions on Catholics in Ireland and Britain continued long after. </p>
<p>The freedoms of non-Anglican groups, including Jews, continued to be curtailed through <a href="http://moses.law.umn.edu/irishlaws/intro.html">penal laws</a> until the 19th century. Tensions between Catholic Irish and Anglican British continued <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74373-4_4">even after the laws were repealed</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2010.01.016">They worsened</a> when the Irish economy and population were devastated by the <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/legislativescrutiny/parliamentandireland/overview/the-great-famine/">Irish Potato Famine</a>, beginning in 1845, and Parliament was slow to respond.</p>
<h2>Judaism in England</h2>
<p>For two centuries, small communities of Jews in Britain lived quietly, protected by the British monarchy. They faced growing hostility in the 13th century due to the Crusades, religious wars to capture the Holy Land from its Muslim rulers, when Christian attitudes toward “foreign” religions hardened. </p>
<p>Since only <a href="https://doi.org/10.2307/2854044">Jews were allowed to lend money and collect interest</a> – Christians considered this a sin – nobles in debt began to accuse Jewish lenders of “usury,” charging exorbitant interest on loans. They pressured the crown to take action, and in 1290, King Edward I <a href="https://www.history.ox.ac.uk/::ognode-637356::/files/download-resource-printable-pdf-5">expelled all Jews from the kingdom</a>. They were not allowed to return until the 17th century by law. </p>
<p>Under Cromwell, Jews were unofficially allowed to return to England. Some were already residents there, including <a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Jews_of_Britain_1656_to_2000/RNyvgPAuvhAC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA26&printsec=frontcover">New Christians</a> – Spanish Jews who had at least superficially converted to Christianity to avoid expulsion from Spain after 1492. Gradually, other groups of openly Jewish refugees were unofficially <a href="https://victorianweb.org/religion/judaism/gossman2.html">allowed to resettle in England</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/484379/original/file-20220913-4760-j43d1i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A group of young people waving while aboard a ship." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/484379/original/file-20220913-4760-j43d1i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/484379/original/file-20220913-4760-j43d1i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/484379/original/file-20220913-4760-j43d1i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/484379/original/file-20220913-4760-j43d1i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/484379/original/file-20220913-4760-j43d1i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=584&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/484379/original/file-20220913-4760-j43d1i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=584&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/484379/original/file-20220913-4760-j43d1i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=584&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Young Jewish refugees arrive in Harwich, England, from Germany, on Dec. 2, 1937.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/PersecutedJewsInEngland1937/251d7cb657524bacb21b401978c990c9/photo?Query=jews%20england&mediaType=photo&sortBy=&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=28&currentItemNo=22">AP Photo</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As Jewish immigration increased throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, restrictions were lifted and Jewish business <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/29778906">became an important part of</a> the British economy. <a href="https://theconversation.com/bevis-marks-britains-oldest-synagogue-is-central-to-londons-history-heres-why-it-needs-protecting-170326">Synagogues were constructed</a> in London and <a href="https://www.jewishgen.org/jcr-uk/Community/leeds/articles/leeds-vic3.htm">other major British cities</a> at this time, and worship was openly permitted. <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/21-22/49/enacted">The Jews Relief Act of 1858</a> granted Jews the right to serve in Parliament. Despite this, <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/cambridge-history-of-judaism/jews-of-great-britain-16501815/627C706CD6DF45A84E64140F287DBFD5">antisemitism remained a strong part</a> of British social and cultural life.</p>
<h2>The queen and the past</h2>
<p>In the early decades of the 20th century, British monarchs <a href="https://www.historyandpolicy.org/opinion-articles/articles/visiting-the-pope-the-monarchs-private-visit">began to adopt a more tolerant attitude</a>. The Queen’s great-grandfather, King Edward VII, <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/history/british-history-after-1450/monarchy-and-british-nation-1780-present?format=PB">took some important first steps</a>. But Queen Elizabeth II made dialogue with non-Anglican Christian churches and non-Christian religious communities <a href="https://www.woolf.cam.ac.uk/whats-on/news/statement-on-her-majesty-queen-elizabeth-ii-1">a priority during her reign</a>, <a href="https://www.state.gov/reports/2020-report-on-international-religious-freedom/united-kingdom/#:%7E:text=Census%20figures%20from%202011%2C%20the,percent%20Jewish%3B%20and%200.4%20Buddhist">recognizing the increasing reality of Great Britain</a>, especially England, as a multifaith nation. </p>
<p>In 1951, two years before Queen Elizabeth II took the throne, she met privately with Pope Pius XII – almost 400 years after Queen Elizabeth I was <a href="https://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/doc/PapalBull1570_M/index.htm">officially excommunicated</a> by Pope Pius V for taking the title Supreme Head of the Church of England. </p>
<p>Queen Elizabeth II had a private audience with Pope John XXIII 10 years later – only the second reigning monarch of the U.K. to visit with any pope. </p>
<p>Her efforts to build a new relationship with the Catholic Church included ongoing interactions with the popes. An official state visit with Pope John Paul II followed in 1980, and that <a href="https://www.vaticannews.va/en/world/news/2020-05/john-paul-s-1982-visit-to-britain-an-extraordinary-event.html">pope made a pastoral visit to Great Britain</a> two years later — the first time any pope had ever traveled there. </p>
<p>Another private audience with John Paul II followed in 2000, and in 2010 the queen <a href="https://www.christiantoday.com/article/catholic.church.seeks.to.clarify.purpose.of.popes.visit/26105.htm">met with Pope Benedict XVI</a> during his official state visit to the U.K. In 2014, she met with Pope Francis at the Vatican, a meeting commemorating 100 years of <a href="https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/252238/queen-elizabeth-met-five-popes-in-her-lifetime">renewed diplomatic relations</a> between the two sovereign states.</p>
<p>Violent resistance and tension continued in the independent Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom’s Northern Ireland over independence until the <a href="https://peaceaccords.nd.edu/accord/northern-ireland-good-friday-agreement">Good Friday peace accords</a> were approved by both sides in 1998. In 2011, the queen became the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-13420053">first reigning monarch to visit the Republic of Ireland</a>, a signal of support of the republic’s <a href="https://www.itv.com/news/utv/2022-09-09/an-historic-visit-reflections-on-queens-2011-trip-to-the-republic-of-ireland">independence</a> and what has been called one of the “<a href="https://www.itv.com/news/utv/2022-09-09/an-historic-visit-reflections-on-queens-2011-trip-to-the-republic-of-ireland">most significant</a>” acts of her long reign. </p>
<p>The Jewish community in Britain <a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/queen-elizabeths-long-complex-relationship-with-the-british-jewish-community/">has also been supported</a> by the queen. Although she herself never visited Israel, <a href="https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-716696">several other members of the royal family did</a>. </p>
<p>The queen also received visits from several presidents of Israel. Several times, she participated in Holocaust commemorations and visited memorials, including <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/queen-elizabeth-to-travel-to-nazi-concentration-camp/">a 2015 trip to the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp</a>, 70 years after it was liberated by the Allies. And in 2022, the Church of England issued <a href="https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/church-of-england-on-christian-jewish-relations">an apology for its contribution to the expulsion of Jews</a> from England in the 13th century.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/484376/original/file-20220913-4760-lbjby7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip bending down to pay homage and lay a wreath at the Nazi concentration camp Bergen-Belsen on June 26, 2015." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/484376/original/file-20220913-4760-lbjby7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/484376/original/file-20220913-4760-lbjby7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=386&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/484376/original/file-20220913-4760-lbjby7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=386&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/484376/original/file-20220913-4760-lbjby7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=386&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/484376/original/file-20220913-4760-lbjby7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=486&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/484376/original/file-20220913-4760-lbjby7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=486&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/484376/original/file-20220913-4760-lbjby7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=486&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Queen Elizabeth II participated in Holocaust commemorations and visited the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp in 2015.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/GermanyBritain/614ea48062434aab9398e7e622f24e51/photo?Query=queen%20visit%20concentration%20camps&mediaType=photo&sortBy=&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=42&currentItemNo=34">Julian Stratenschulte/Pool Photo via AP</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In 2012, Jonathan Sacks, chief rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth, called the queen the “<a href="https://www.rabbisacks.org/archive/the-queen-is-defender-of-all-britains-faiths/">Defender of all Britain’s Faiths</a>,” writing that, “No one does interfaith better than the Royal Family, and it begins with the Queen herself.”</p>
<h2>The king and the future</h2>
<p>Indeed, the former Prince of Wales suggested in 2015 that the title Defender of the Faith be understood more broadly, as simply “<a href="https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/will-prince-wales-be-defender-faith-or-defender-faith">Defender of Faith</a>.” He stressed that he wanted to be seen as a defender of religious rights in general, not just the Anglican faith.</p>
<p>And when his accession was proclaimed on Sept. 10, 2022, King Charles III took the long-standing oath to preserve the rights of the Church of Scotland using the same wording that his predecessors have since the 16th century – <a href="https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2022/09/10/king-charles-iii-proclamation-oath-accession-council-vpx.cnn">as Defender of the Faith</a>. </p>
<p>There is little doubt that during his reign, King Charles III will continue to build on the foundation of toleration and dialogue laid down firmly by his mother. Modern Britain is a nation of many faiths, and a contemporary monarch will need to ensure that each of them is vigorously defended and warmly celebrated.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/190492/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>I was a member of the Anglican-Roman Catholic Dialogue in the US for several years, as a Roman Catholic member appointed by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.</span></em></p>Queen Elizabeth II encouraged tolerance in a multifaith United Kingdom. To appreciate the significance of her efforts, it is important to understand the country’s complicated religious history.Joanne M. Pierce, Professor Emerita of Religious Studies, College of the Holy CrossLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1031472018-09-19T22:40:39Z2018-09-19T22:40:39ZTrump is just the latest U.S. president to push Palestine around<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/237160/original/file-20180919-158234-ahn4wl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">In this September 1993 photo, U.S. President Bill Clinton presides over White House ceremonies marking the signing of the peace accord between Israel and the Palestinians with Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, left, and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, right, in Washington. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Ron Edmonds)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton <a href="https://www.democracynow.org/2005/3/31/john_bolton_in_his_own_words">is at it again</a>. He recently issued a blistering rebuke of the International Criminal Court (ICC): “<a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?451213-1/national-security-adviser-john-bolton-addresses-federalist-society">We will let the ICC die on its own. After all, for all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead to us</a>.”</p>
<p>Is this another example of U.S. President Donald Trump withdrawing the United States from the international community? Is it yet another harbinger of the end of the post-1945 “rules-based international order?”</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NWB6IUE0hJU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">John Bolton strongly criticizes the International Criminal Court in this clip on the Guardian website.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>No. That’s because “rules-based international order” was never what it appeared to be anyway. Rather than a benign de facto agreement on problem-solving through discussion rather than armed conflict, it represents an exclusive club that ensures the perpetual dominance of some societies over others. </p>
<p>Just ask the Palestinians.</p>
<p>One of the reasons behind Bolton’s tirade is that the U.S. administration wants to prevent the ICC from following through on Palestinian requests to investigate the legality of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.</p>
<p>Indeed, the Trump administration has proven over the last few months that it is more than willing to go out of its way to <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/palestine-unrwa-israel-refugees-united-nations-trump-administration-a8518651.html">punish the Palestinians</a> for daring to challenge Israeli domination, even when that “challenge” has taken the meekest of forms.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/gazas-fire-kites-and-balloon-bombs-ignite-tensions-99341">Gaza’s fire kites and balloon bombs ignite tensions</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>According to David Rothkopf, a prominent commentator: “<a href="https://soundcloud.com/deepstateradio/is-that-thing-under-john-boltons-nose-a-bugbear">It’s as if the U.S. State Department has handed over its entire Middle East policy to the Prime Minister of Israel.</a>” </p>
<p>Bolton, as if to prove this point, said in his speech:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The United States will always stand with our friend and ally, Israel. And today, reflecting congressional concerns with Palestinian attempts to prompt an ICC investigation of Israel, the State Department will announce the closure of the Palestine Liberation Organization office here in Washington, D.C.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Not surprising</h2>
<p>At the risk of employing what has become a cliché during the Trump presidency: This is shocking, yes, but not really surprising. </p>
<p>Trump is apparently seeking to destroy the apparently civilized way in which international politics has been conducted since the end of the Second World War — the so-called rules-based international order.</p>
<p>As Kori Schake explained in the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/opinion/sunday/trump-china-america-first.html"><em>New York Times</em></a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Beginning in the wreckage of World War II, America established a set of global norms that solidified its position atop a rules-based international system … building institutions and patterns of behaviour that legitimize American power by giving less powerful countries a say.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Trump, so this argument goes, either can’t accept or doesn’t understand this, and is gleefully engaged in the process of wrecking it from the inside. </p>
<p>“This aggressive disregard for the interests of like-minded countries, indifference to democracy and human rights and cultivation of dictators is the new world Mr. Trump is creating,” Schake explains. </p>
<p>However, the notion of a broad and benign American-led world order makes less sense from the standpoint of those excluded by the system.</p>
<p>Indeed, for Palestinians, the Trump administration’s bullying may be more humiliating than previous presidencies, but in terms of substance, the difference is marginal. </p>
<p>The U.S. has always protected Israel’s ability to lord over Palestinian lands and Palestinian lives with impunity; the U.S. has always been happy to use its heft to back its friend under presidents both Democratic and Republican.</p>
<h2>James Baker’s threat</h2>
<p>A useful example comes from celebrated U.S. Secretary of State James Baker, who in 1989 <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/1989-05-02/news/mn-2572_1_plo-observer-organization-chairman-yasser-arafat-s-organization">threatened to defund the World Health Organization</a> if Palestine were to join:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The United States vigorously opposes the admission of the PLO to membership in the World Health Organization or any other UN agency … To emphasize the depth of our concern, I will recommend to the president that the United States make no further contributions, voluntary or assessed, to any international organization which makes any change in the PLO’s present status as an observer organization.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Like Bolton’s attack on the ICC, the effect would be to punish a valuable and obviously benevolent partner in the “rules-based international order” merely to ensure that Palestine would be kept out.</p>
<p>Under successive presidents since George H.W. Bush, the U.S. has promoted or enabled some form of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, but they’ve always taken place outside the framework of international law. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/237154/original/file-20180919-146148-1snm5ns.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/237154/original/file-20180919-146148-1snm5ns.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/237154/original/file-20180919-146148-1snm5ns.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/237154/original/file-20180919-146148-1snm5ns.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/237154/original/file-20180919-146148-1snm5ns.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/237154/original/file-20180919-146148-1snm5ns.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=531&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/237154/original/file-20180919-146148-1snm5ns.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=531&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/237154/original/file-20180919-146148-1snm5ns.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=531&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In this September 1993 photo, Israel’s Foreign Minister Shimon Peres signs the Middle East peace agreement in Washington, D.C. as Bill Clinton and PLO Leader Yasser Arafat, among other officials, look on. The deal later fell apart.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Ron Edmonds)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Twenty-five years ago this month, PLO Leader Yasser Arafat <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/world/wp/2018/09/12/feature/a-middle-east-mirage/">shook hands with Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin on the White House lawn</a> and agreed on a phased plan to end the occupation by the turn of the century. There has been virtually no progress and no enforcement by the United States since.</p>
<p>The Americans show scant concern for human rights, the rights of refugees or for UN Security Council resolutions when it comes to Israel-Palestine. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/237140/original/file-20180919-158213-cdgh2i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/237140/original/file-20180919-158213-cdgh2i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/237140/original/file-20180919-158213-cdgh2i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=442&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/237140/original/file-20180919-158213-cdgh2i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=442&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/237140/original/file-20180919-158213-cdgh2i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=442&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/237140/original/file-20180919-158213-cdgh2i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=555&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/237140/original/file-20180919-158213-cdgh2i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=555&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/237140/original/file-20180919-158213-cdgh2i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=555&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, right, looks around Arafat at a news conference in October 1996 after Clinton said they’d failed in a two-day Washington summit to settle their explosive differences.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Doug Mills, File)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Instead, the U.S. has used its <a href="https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/42-times-us-has-used-its-veto-power-against-un-resolutions-israel-942194703">veto power some 43 times</a> to protect Israel from the overwhelming will of the international community, and it has withdrawn and defunded international agencies such as UNESCO and the UN Human Rights Council in retribution for those entities recognizing Palestine.</p>
<p>Why? </p>
<p>It’s not as if the Palestinians have been unco-operative. Since the end of <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/archive/2003/12/20084101554875168.html">the second intefadeh</a>, the Palestinian Authority — the non-sovereign entity that has governed parts of the West Bank — has indulged the will of the <a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/01/18/building-a-police-state-in-palestine/">international community to a degree that is almost craven</a>. </p>
<p>It has curtailed violence against Israel and pursued U.S.-led security sector reform. At the same time, it’s taken steps through bilateral negotiations <a href="https://www.google.ca/search?q=palestine+UN+membership&oq=palestine+UN+membership&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l2.6904j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8">and through the UN to join the “rules-based order.”</a> All of which is in pursuit of the so-called <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/29/world/middleeast/israel-palestinians-two-state-solution.html">two-state solution</a> — a partition plan wherein the Palestinians would, at the very least, accept the loss of <a href="https://ifamericaknew.org/history/maps.html">78 per cent of their historic territory</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/237155/original/file-20180919-143281-bf31kg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/237155/original/file-20180919-143281-bf31kg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=915&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/237155/original/file-20180919-143281-bf31kg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=915&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/237155/original/file-20180919-143281-bf31kg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=915&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/237155/original/file-20180919-143281-bf31kg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1150&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/237155/original/file-20180919-143281-bf31kg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1150&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/237155/original/file-20180919-143281-bf31kg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1150&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">U.S. President Barack Obama waves at the audience after delivering a speech in Cairo in June 2009.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Nasser Nasser)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But none of this was good enough for President George W. Bush, who promoted a “<a href="https://www.google.ca/search?q=roadmap+to+peace&oq=roadmap+to+peace&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.4003j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8">Road Map</a>” that made Palestinian statehood contingent on a “performance analysis” that would be adjudicated exclusively by the occupier. Nor was it enough for President Barack Obama, who told an audience in Cairo in 2009 that “<a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/issues/foreign-policy/presidents-speech-cairo-a-new-beginning">the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable</a>,” but went on <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/28/politics/ben-rhodes-veto-un-resolution-palestinian-state-obama/index.html">to oppose Palestinian statehood at every turn</a>.</p>
<p>When viewed in this context, we can see that while Trump’s White House may be more overtly aggressive in its language and willingness to be vindictive toward Palestine and the Palestinians, in substance it’s not significantly different from previous administrations.</p>
<p>Perniciously excluding Palestine from the “rules-based order” is a U.S. priority under any president, whether they’re blue, red … or orange.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/donald-trumps-orange-face-may-be-funny-but-this-tanning-historian-says-it-masks-something-deeper-100282">Donald Trump's orange face may be funny, but this tanning historian says it masks something deeper</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/103147/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Philip Leech-Ngo does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Donald Trump’s strong defence of Israel might be more boisterous than his predecessors, but it’s consistent with the anti-Palestinian policies by previous U.S. administrations.Philip Leech-Ngo, Senior Research Fellow, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of OttawaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/847582017-10-06T13:24:29Z2017-10-06T13:24:29ZWhy the Nobel Peace Prize brings little peace<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189277/original/file-20171007-23531-9i4k7x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Beatrice Fihn, executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN).</span> </figcaption></figure><p>The Nobel Peace Prize for 2017 was awarded to the <a href="http://www.icanw.org/">International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons</a>, an advocacy group that has worked to draw attention to their <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/06/world/nobel-peace-prize/index.html">“catastrophic humanitarian consequences.” </a></p>
<p>Every year, the winners of the Nobel Prizes are announced to great fanfare. And none receives more scrutiny than the <a href="https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/">Nobel Peace Prize</a>.</p>
<p>With good reason. The other Nobel Prizes are given to people who have already changed our world – for their remarkable accomplishments. But, in the case of the Nobel Peace Prize, the hope of the Nobel Committee is to change the world through its very conferral. It, therefore, rewards <a href="http://arcadepub.com/titles/10942-9781611457247-nobel-prize">aspiration more than achievement</a>. </p>
<p>Francis Sejersted, chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee from 1991-1999, once <a href="https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/themes/peace/sejersted/">noted</a> with pride the Nobel Peace Prize’s political ambitions: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“The Committee also takes the possible positive effects of its choices into account [because] … Nobel wanted the Prize to have political effects. Awarding a Peace Prize is, to put it bluntly, a political act.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So, has the Nobel Peace Prize changed the world? </p>
<p>Expecting the prize to bring world peace would be an unfair standard to apply. However, <a href="http://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-165X.2009.tb00660.x">my research</a> shows that the winners and their causes have rarely profited from the award. Even worse, the prize has at times made it harder for them to make the leap from aspiration to achievement.</p>
<h2>History of the peace award</h2>
<p>The Nobel Peace Prize was <a href="https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/themes/peace/lundestad-review/">first awarded in 1901</a>, five years after Alfred Nobel’s death. <a href="https://www.nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/will/will-full.html">Nobel’s will</a> defined peace narrowly and focused on candidates’ accomplishments: The prize was to be awarded “to the person who shall have 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.”</p>
<p>The committee initially remained <a href="http://arcadepub.com/titles/10942-9781611457247-nobel-prize">true to Nobel’s charge</a>. Between 1901 and 1945, over three-quarters of the prizes (33 of 43) went to those who promoted interstate peace and disarmament.</p>
<p>Since the Second World War, however, less than one-quarter of the prizes have gone to promoting interstate peace and disarmament. Just seven of the 37 winners since 1989 fall into this category. Another 11 awards have sought to encourage ongoing peace processes.</p>
<p>But many of these processes had borne little fruit at the time or still had a long road ahead. Consider that three of the most prominent winners in this category were <a href="https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1994/">then Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman Yasser Arafat, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin</a>. Nonetheless, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is <a href="https://www.vox.com/cards/israel-palestine/peace-process">today in a coma</a>. </p>
<p>Perhaps for this reason, in the last decade, the committee has given just two awards to encourage peace processes. In 2008 <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/oct/11/finland-unitednations">Martti Ahtisaari</a>, former president of Finland, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his various achievements in Namibia, Kosovo and Aceh. In 2016, Colombia’s President <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/world/americas/nobel-peace-prize-juan-manuel-santos-colombia.html">Juan Manuel Santos</a> was honored with the Nobel in the hope that the prize would help push through his peace deal with the <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-36605769">Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)</a> rebels, even though a popular referendum had just rejected it, and thereby end his country’s half-century-long civil war.</p>
<p>The striking change since the 1970s, and especially since the end of the Cold War, has been the Nobel Peace Prize’s growing focus on promoting domestic political change. </p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/188805/original/file-20171004-6724-16mw6mf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/188805/original/file-20171004-6724-16mw6mf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=461&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/188805/original/file-20171004-6724-16mw6mf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=461&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/188805/original/file-20171004-6724-16mw6mf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=461&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/188805/original/file-20171004-6724-16mw6mf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=579&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/188805/original/file-20171004-6724-16mw6mf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=579&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/188805/original/file-20171004-6724-16mw6mf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=579&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Albert Luthuli, winner of the 1960 Nobel Peace Prize.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Between 1946 and 1970, the prize was awarded just twice to dissidents and activists like the <a href="http://www.sahistory.org.za/people/chief-albert-john-mvumbi-luthuli">South African leader Albert Luthuli</a>, who led a nonviolent struggle against apartheid in the 1960s, and the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/1014.html">American civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr.</a>. Between 1971 and 1988, such figures received the prize <a href="http://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-165X.2009.tb00660.x">five times</a>. Between 1989 and 2016, more than 40 percent of all winners fell into this category. </p>
<p>The rate has been even higher in the last decade: 57 percent of Nobel Peace Prize laureates since 2007 have been activists and advocates for equality, liberty and human development like educating women and stopping child labor. </p>
<p>These are admirable values. But their connection to interstate, and intrastate, conflict is indirect at best and tenuous at worst.</p>
<h2>Does it bring global attention to issues?</h2>
<p>The Nobel Peace Prize’s <a href="https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/themes/peace/lundestad/">defenders</a> insist that the prize works in subtle but perceptible ways to advance the winners’ causes. They say it attracts media attention, bolsters the winners and their supporters, and even focuses international pressure. </p>
<p>But there’s little evidence that the Nobel Peace Prize brings sustained global attention. </p>
<p>First of all, in many instances it is hard to tell whether the prize has made any difference, because the media glare was already intense. For example, in 2005, when the committee <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/id/9618236/ns/world_news-europe/t/iaea-elbaradei-win-nobel-peace-prize/#.WdOjItOGM_U">honored</a> the International Atomic Energy Agency and its director general, Mohammed El Baradei, nuclear proliferation was already of great concern. In other cases – such as South Africa’s transition from apartheid, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or the troubles in Northern Ireland – the prize made little noticeable difference to international media coverage. </p>
<p>It is true that in those few cases where coverage was not already strong, there have been occasional successes. For instance, <a href="http://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-165X.2009.tb00660.x">I found</a> that the committee’s decision to hand the award to Aung San Suu Kyi in 1991 did draw attention to the plight of Myanmar.</p>
<p>But, in general, <a href="http://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-165X.2009.tb00660.x">my research</a> found little evidence that winning the Nobel Peace Prize boosts international media coverage of the winner’s cause beyond the short run.</p>
<h2>Putting activists in peril</h2>
<p>Of greater concern is that, when the Nobel Peace Prize goes to promote political and social change – as it has so often in recent decades – it can have very real and detrimental effects on the movements and causes it celebrates. </p>
<p>Powerful authoritarian regimes will not liberalize just because the Nobel Committee has chosen to honor a dissident. This is not because regimes dismiss it as a silly award given out by international do-gooders. In fact, they take it very seriously. Fearing that domestic activists would take heart, they have <a href="http://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-165X.2009.tb00660.x">ramped up repression</a>, shrunk the space for political opposition and cracked down harder than ever. </p>
<p>This is what happened in Tibet and Myanmar after the Dalai Lama and after Aung San Suu Kyi received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989 and 1991, respectively. Similarly, the Iranian lawyer and human rights activist <a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east-july-dec03-nobel_10-10/">Shirin Ebadi</a> has been forced to lived in <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/26/world/la-fg-iran-lawyers-20110726">exile</a> in Britain since 2009. In China, the peace award did not make the release of the dissident <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/13/world/asia/liu-xiaobo-dead.html">Liu Xiaobo</a> from prison more likely. </p>
<p>The same is true when it comes to social change. Patriarchal societies, with their deeply entrenched gender roles, will not change just because some people in the West think they should and to that end name a women’s rights activist a Nobel laureate.</p>
<h2>What’s at stake?</h2>
<p>The Nobel Committee’s intentions are honorable, but the results, I argue, can be tragic. The award raises the spirits of reformers, but it also mobilizes forces that are far greater in opposition. </p>
<p>Every October, many the world over hail the Nobel Committee for its brave and inspired choice. But it is the truly brave activists on the ground who are left to bear the consequences when anxious leaders bring the state’s terrible power down on them. </p>
<p>And what happens when the Nobel Peace Prize actually helps to promote political change? As state counsellor (prime minister) of Myanmar, Aung San Suu Kyi has presided over the bloody <a href="http://theweek.com/articles/727552/persecution-rohingya">persecution of the Rohingya</a> and a swiftly mounting <a href="https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/rohingya-migrant-crisis">international refugee crisis</a>. The admired dissident has, in power, turned out <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/asia/aung-san-suu-kyi-speech-rohingya/index.html">not to be so great a promoter of peace and tolerance</a>. </p>
<p>The Nobel Peace Prize Committee’s choices have been noble – but, as my research suggests, also sometimes naïve.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/84758/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ronald R. Krebs does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A scholar analyzes the history of the Nobel Peace Prize to ask: What difference has it made?Ronald R. Krebs, Beverly and Richard Fink Professor in the Liberal Arts and Professor of Political Science, University of MinnesotaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/654552016-09-28T13:02:28Z2016-09-28T13:02:28ZShimon Peres was an Israeli nationalist first and a peacemaker second<p>Shimon Peres, often described as “<a href="http://www.timesofisrael.com/shimon-peres-the-last-of-israels-founding-fathers-dies-at-93/">the last of Israel’s founding fathers</a>”, has died at 93 after a major stroke. Peres was a pillar of the Israeli political scene from the state’s founding in 1948 until his death, and his passing has been marked with tributes from around the world. </p>
<p>But while he was generally popular in Israel and abroad, his record in office was by no means unblemished – and given what a towering figure he is in Israel’s history, his reputation as one of the 20th century’s great peacemakers needs to be put in perspective.</p>
<p>On his 90th birthday, when <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23559848">asked by a BBC correspondent</a> whether he was a hawk or a dove, he responded: “I was a hawk as long as there was a danger to Israel. If someone wants to kill you, you are a hawk. If someone wants to make peace with you, you are a dove.” </p>
<p>This pragmatism helps to explain his extraordinary staying power at the top of the Israeli establishment. And given his consistent presence at the centre of power, whether as president, prime minister or leader of the Israeli Labour party, it is not surprising that his legacy is a mixed one. </p>
<p>As his remark to the BBC makes clear, Peres was first and foremost an Israeli nationalist, a committed Zionist prepared to do whatever it took to protect the state of Israel from its perceived enemies. </p>
<p>This means that any attempted peace process he engaged in was bound to be beset by various constraints. Above all, he was limited by the fundamental problem of his country’s history: an inherent tension between the imperative to keep Israel safe and the evident need to form peaceful relations with neighbouring Arab states and the Palestinians. </p>
<h2>Old wounds</h2>
<p>It was never going to be easy for Israel to address the Palestinian question. In 1948, in order to make way for the new state of Israel, as many as 800,000 Palestinians were forced to flee from their homes. Many of these people and their descendants continue to live in highly insecure conditions in <a href="http://www.unrwa.org/palestine-refugees">refugee camps</a> spread across Jordan, Lebanon, and until recently Syria.</p>
<p>Palestinians and their supporters argue that this injustice must be resolved before genuine peace can be realised – but they also wonder how serious Israel really is about the peace project.</p>
<p>Much of this distrust dates back to the war of 1967. Nervous about Arab armies massing on its borders, Israel launched a brief but highly effective offensive and occupied Syrian, Egyptian and Palestinian territory. With the exception of the Sinai, which Egypt took back in the late 1970s when it struck a peace treaty with Israel, these areas remain under Israeli control. </p>
<p>Within days of its victory in 1967, the Israeli government embarked on a programme of settlement building in the (Syrian) Golan Heights and the (Palestinian) West Bank. Although defined as <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-settlements-idUSKCN0YM1MY">illegal under international law</a>, this policy continues in various forms to this day – and Peres supported it enthusiastically.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/shimon-peres-and-the-legacy-of-the-oslo-accords-65429">Oslo Accords</a> of 1993 were meant to address the seemingly unending occupation, and for a while, some Palestinians thought there was at last a chance to make peace. Although Oslo had its critics, both parties appeared to be trying to make it work. It felt like a breakthrough, and Peres was lauded for his part in it. </p>
<p>After Peres’s fellow Nobel laureate <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34712057">Yitzhak Rabin</a> was assassinated in 1995, Peres succeeded him as prime minister. His reign was soon marred by violence. The Palestinian Islamist group Hamas began a campaign of suicide bombings against Israeli targets, many of them civilian; in response, Peres launched an ill-thought-out attack against neighbouring Lebanon, which culminated in the horrific <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2006/8/1/survivors_of_1996_qana_massacre_sue">Qana massacre</a>.</p>
<p>One of the reasons Peres remained an acceptable face for even Israel’s most controversial and aggressive behaviour was his masterly ability to defend government actions in public, and to explain seemingly unreasonable positions with articulate ease. </p>
<p>An intelligent man given to diplomatic nuance and tact, Peres was a very different individual to the current premier, Benjamin Netanyahu, who relies on harsh rhetoric and military action to assert Israeli power. Peres’s leadership seems like a golden age by comparison, as many members of today’s Israeli cabinet quite openly say that there will never be a Palestinian state. </p>
<p>Peres’s ultimate asset was his pragmatism, and he accepted that there needed to be some sort of peace – but even for him, it could only be on Israeli terms. Perhaps that’s one reason why even Oslo, for all the hope and goodwill invested in it, was doomed to fail in the end.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/65455/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Maria Holt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>By turns hawkish and dovish, Peres’ complicated legacy runs far deeper than the Oslo Accords.Maria Holt, Reader in Politics, University of WestminsterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/654292016-09-28T05:54:52Z2016-09-28T05:54:52ZShimon Peres and the legacy of the Oslo Accords<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138946/original/image-20160923-2587-zy3hyx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Shimon Peres during his visit to Terezin in the Czech Republic in 2011.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-405308788/stock-photo-terezin-czech-republic-march-30-2011-israeli-statesman-and-politician-shimon-peres-during-his-visit-on-march-30-2011-in-terezin-czech-republic.html?src=snTpd8_enDZmbh9vqSuggA-1-1">Michal Kalasek/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Shimon Peres, the former prime minister of Israel, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-37492153">has died</a> at the age of 93 after suffering a stroke. A titan of Israeli political life, Peres remained an active player in his country and the region until his death, working hard to promote closer ties between Israelis and Palestinians. </p>
<p>He will be remembered above all else for his role in negotiating the 1993 Oslo Peace Accords and for winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994 along with then-Israeli Prime Minster Yitzak Rabin and Yasser Arafat, who was at the time chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). A peace treaty with Jordan also followed, which established mutual recognition between that country and Israel.</p>
<p>Peres always believed that the Israelis needed to be a proactive partner in the peace process. As he <a href="http://www.upi.com/Israeli-President-Shimon-Peres-Give-peace-a-chance/26161366056092/">put it</a> in 2013: “We can and should bring an end to the conflict – and we have to be the initiators. Playing hard-to-get may be a romantic proposition, but it’s not a good political plan.” </p>
<p>His dedication to the peace process was established even before Oslo. In the late 1980s, Peres was involved in a secret agreement with Jordan’s King Hussein. Signed in April 1987, the so-called London Agreement outlined a framework for a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict that would focus on education and the development of the two countries’ respective economies. Unfortunately the Israeli prime minister at the time, Yitzak Shamir, disagreed, and <a href="http://www.jpost.com/National-News/Peres-I-do-not-regret-the-Oslo-Accords-309850">refused to approve the agreement</a>.</p>
<p>Peres was involved in the peace process again by the early 1990s, while serving as foreign minister under Rabin. But before Oslo even took place there were internal battles about who to negotiate with – the PLO in Israel-Palestine, which was supposedly composed of moderates, or the PLO based in Tunis and led by Arafat. Ultimately, it was Arafat who came to the negotiating table. </p>
<p>To make this happen, both Peres and Rabin had to change their mind about dealing with the PLO abroad. Peres felt that it was <a href="http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.701386">futile to keep Arafat in exile in Tunisia</a> since it made co-operation between the two sides more difficult.</p>
<p>Though the secret accords have been highly controversial ever since they were struck, they nevertheless included several noteworthy steps. The first was <a href="http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/9/13/oslo-accords-explained.html">mutual recognition</a>: for the first time, the PLO would recognise the state of Israel, and vice versa. </p>
<p>The accords also created an interim government for the Palestinians, the Palestinian National Authority, which would take over responsibilities in education, social welfare, health care, direct taxation and tourism. Within nine months, elections were to be held. </p>
<p>The accords allowed for Arafat to return to Gaza after years in exile; Israel was also supposed to withdraw from Gaza and Jericho within four months. In return, the PLO would also remove chapters in its charter referring to the destruction of Israel, which would be given guarantees that its people had the right to live in peace and security. </p>
<h2>The stalled process</h2>
<p>Proponents of Oslo at the time claimed that the accords helped <a href="https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/sr158.pdf">encourage a peaceful approach</a> to the conflict, and constituted the first step to getting the peace process started in earnest. But as is all too evident today, and despite Peres’s lifelong optimism, the peace the accords planned for was never achieved.</p>
<p>Oslo failed to address the key issues of the conflict: the status of Jerusalem, right of return for the 1948 Palestinian refugees, the status of the Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, and the borders of the Palestinian territory. There was also no promise of an independent Palestinian state. It was assumed that these issues would be negotiated at the end of the five-year transition period the accords provided for. For many critics, the Oslo was just a litany of empty promises.</p>
<p>Part of the problem was that the accords were not actually a peace treaty, but only a <a href="http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/9/13/oslo-accords-explained.html">first step to peace</a> and a framework for facilitating negotiations for a final treaty intended to be negotiated in 1998.</p>
<p>When the accords were signed in September 1993, the criticism was sharp and immediate. Palestinian scholar Edward Said decried them as a “<a href="http://www.lrb.co.uk/v15/n20/edward-said/the-morning-after">Palestinian surrender</a>”, and claimed that the plan would throw the Palestinian leadership into complete disarray. </p>
<p>There was also anger on the Israeli side. Peres’s fellow negotiator Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by a right-wing Israeli extremist in November 1995, an event which in turn led to the election of the right-wing Likud Party in 1996. Led by Benjamin Netanyahu, who today serves as Israel’s prime minister again, the new government was openly antagonistic towards Oslo. </p>
<h2>Dashed hopes</h2>
<p>So why did Oslo fail? As ever, it depends which voices on which side you listen to.</p>
<p>Many Israelis blame Palestinian violence for wrecking the peace process. After the Camp David Accords collapsed in July 2000, the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7381378.stm">Second Intifada</a> broke out and ran until 2005. The militant Islamist group Hamas <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4650788.stm">won legislative elections</a> in 2006, further <a href="https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/sr158.pdf">deepening a rift</a> among Palestinians and making the Palestinian Authority more irrelevant than ever. </p>
<p>In contrast, many Palestinians claim that it was the Israelis who have reneged on their side of the deal. Highly contentious is the issue of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories: in 1993, there were 115,700 Israeli settlers living there, whereas <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/12/oslo-israel-reneged-colonial-palestine">today</a> there are more than 350,000 in the West Bank and another 300,000 living within East Jerusalem’s pre-1967 borders. No settlement freezes have taken place, and this constant encroachment has made the two-state solution more difficult.</p>
<p>A <a href="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/aai/pages/9783/attachments/original/1431961130/20YearsAfterOslo.pdf?1431961130">2013 poll</a> examining the effects of Oslo on public opinion 20 years later found both sides have been dissatisfied. Palestinians maintained that the Israelis were the big winners, with 49% claiming that the accords damaged their interests. On the Israeli side, 68% of Israelis felt that the main beneficiaries were the Palestinians, and 64% felt that they themselves had been harmed by the accords. </p>
<p>And yet a <a href="http://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/623">2015 poll</a> revealed that while 90% of Palestinians don’t think Israel has abided by the Oslo Agreement, 68% still want to support the agreement. So for all that the Oslo framework is resented criticised, any new peace process for peace in the region will almost certainly have to stick to it in some form. </p>
<p>Although the two sides are far apart, Peres died an optimist, still hopeful that the day would come when the Israeli Defence Forces’s soldiers would serve purely for peace. As he famously put it: “<a href="http://www.jpost.com/National-News/Peres-I-do-not-regret-the-Oslo-Accords-309850">Impossibility is only a product of our prejudice</a>.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/65429/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Natasha Lindstaedt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>One of Israel’s greatest political figures, Shimon Peres left an indelible mark on the Middle East.Natasha Lindstaedt, Senior Lecturer, University of EssexLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/327942014-10-13T00:32:56Z2014-10-13T00:32:56ZAdmirable Nobel decision unlikely to spur India-Pakistan peace<p>The awarding of a shared Nobel Peace Prize award to a 17-year-old Pakistani girl, <a href="https://theconversation.com/nobel-peace-prize-extraordinary-malala-a-powerful-role-model-32839">Malala Yousafzai</a>, and a 60-year-old Indian man, <a href="http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/who-is-kailash-satyarthi/1/395118.html">Kailash Satyarthi</a>, is historic and aimed at conveying multiple messages to global policy-makers. Both awardees have worked tirelessly for the rights of an estimated 180 million children worldwide who continue to be <a href="http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@dgreports/@dcomm/@publ/documents/publication/wcms_publ_9221124169_en.pdf">used for harsh labour</a>. The impacts on their right to schooling are crippling. </p>
<p>No doubt, the common cause of child welfare has touched the Nobel committee, but this year’s prize is not unprecedented. <a href="http://www.unicef.org/about/history/index_56072.html">UNICEF</a> was awarded the prize in 1965 for a similar cause. </p>
<p>What is perhaps more consequential is the nationality, religions and age of this year’s recipients. A collective award to nationals of two rival nuclear powers hailing from two different religious groups that harbour immense animosity for each other is noteworthy. The age difference of the recipients highlights the transgenerational importance of fighting for children’s rights and for peace-building more generally.</p>
<p>The Nobel committee has perhaps also redeemed itself by recognising Satyarthi, an intellectual protege of Mohandas Gandhi. The untimely assassination of Gandhi in 1948, and the provisions in Alfred Nobel’s will for awarding the prize to living individuals only, was <a href="http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/themes/peace/gandhi/">symbolically noted by the committee</a> in awarding no peace prize that year. </p>
<p>It is also important to recognise the hidden hands of doctors in Pakistan and the UK who saved Malala Yusufzai after her assassination attempt. If she had not survived, she too would have been deprived of this honour.</p>
<h2>History of prize is sobering</h2>
<p>Now let us get to the other matter of any peace dividends this prize might have for the ongoing <a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/spotlight/kashmirtheforgottenconflict/2011/06/2011615113058224115.html">conflict between India and Pakistan</a> or between Hindus and Muslims. Unfortunately, the history of the prize in galvanising peace between acrimonious countries predicated in ethno-religious differences is very discouraging. </p>
<p>For example, the awarding of <a href="http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1994/">the 1994 prize</a> to Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin has had absolutely no impact in moving Arabs and Israelis closer to conflict resolution 20 years on. </p>
<p>The success of the prize in motivating intrastate political peace or protecting dissidents is perhaps slightly more heartening. Yet here too the time it takes for any impact to be realised muddles any causality.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1991/">Aung San Suu Kyi</a> was perhaps protected from extreme persecution in Myanmar by her Nobel award. However, more than 22 years hence her participation in any electoral process remains elusive despite the ostensible “opening up” of the country.</p>
<h2>Sustained international engagement is needed</h2>
<p>The only way the peace dividends from this year’s prize could potentially be harnessed for Indians and Pakistanis alike would be if external powers with influence in the region played a meaningful mediating role. The asymmetry in power between the countries, both demographically and economically, trumps any nuclear equalisation factor one might envisage. Any expectations that both countries will somehow sort out their political issues and see the light of peace following the joint Nobel would be naïve. </p>
<p>India has far more economic might than Pakistan and any incentives for peace-building, despite their logic on ecological and even trade-related grounds, are easily subverted by security hawks. In such a situation, the only way to motivate a lasting peace would involve some form of international mediation on the long-standing territorial dispute between the countries. Major powers, particularly economic trading partners with India such as the United States, would need to invest political capital. </p>
<p>Gulf States such as the UAE or Saudi Arabia could exert similar influence on Pakistan and its powerful military, which maintains strong ties in the region. The Gulf states could also help counter the fundamentalist fervour and conspiratorial rhetoric that have forced Yousafzai into exile. (She lives in the UK for fear of further assassination attempts in Pakistan.)</p>
<p>Norway, which hosts the Nobel prize, tried its hand at mediation in South Asia in the case of the Sri Lankan conflict a decade ago. A military solution prevailed instead, so one may wonder how effective mediation might be. </p>
<p>India and Pakistan both realise their conflict has no long-term military solution. However, the “cool war” status quo serves the political elite in both nations. </p>
<p>Perhaps where the joint Nobel Peace Prize could make a slow but generational shift would be through changing public perceptions of regional conflicts. Both countries have to contend with abject poverty and human rights issues, which neither can afford to trivialise. A campaign to channel public funds from military expenditure towards joint human development goals could be an important next step for Yousafzai and Satyarthi.</p>
<p>However, only concerted international engagement can hope to secure lasting peace. Territorial conflict sadly continues to eclipse the collective good of securing a better future for Indian and Pakistani children.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/32794/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Saleem H. Ali does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The awarding of a shared Nobel Peace Prize award to a 17-year-old Pakistani girl, Malala Yousafzai, and a 60-year-old Indian man, Kailash Satyarthi, is historic and aimed at conveying multiple messages…Saleem H. Ali, Director, Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining and Affiliate Professor of Politics and International Studies, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.