from NY to Israel Sultan Reveals
The Stories Behind the News

Posted: 12 Oct 2009 07:22 PM PDT

Quick, name the greatest peacemaker of the 20th Century who
never received a Nobel Peace Prize? The wrong answer given by Foreign
Policy magazine is Gandhi. The right answer is British Prime Minister
Winston Churchill.

Churchill would strike many as an odd choice for a Nobel Peace
Prize. Didn't he preside over the bloodiest war of the 20th century that
was fought around the world. A war that left millions dead and entire
nations in ruins. And that of course is exactly the point. By resisting
Hitler, Churchill brought peace to Western Europe and to every part of the
world threatened by Nazi Germany. By contrast Gandhi did nothing but
advise England to surrender, to let the Nazis occupy their cities, rather
than "taint" themselves with violence.

Both Churchill and Gandhi
wanted peace, they just wanted different kinds of peace. Churchill wanted
a secure peace for England and Europe by defeating the Nazis. Gandhi
wanted a sham spiritual peace by surrendering to the Nazis, letting them
do their worst and priding himself on being better than them. Churchill
wanted to hold the moral high ground by taking the strategic high ground.
Gandhi wanted the moral high ground by waving the white flag of surrender.
These radically different notions of what peace is are at the heart of our
problems today.

A notion of peace that rewards the Gandhis over the
Churchills, rewards appeasement over resistance. It promotes the idea that
throwing your hands up in surrender is better and nobler than reaching for
a gun to defend yourself and your family with. That is the significance of
the Norwegian committee awarding Obama a Nobel Peace Prize, which should
be renamed the appeasement prize.

The Nobel committee cited Obama's
speech about a "World Without Nuclear Weapons" as his qualification for
receiving the award. Naturally this does not mean that the United States
will actually prevent the Hitlers of tomorrow from getting their hands on
nuclear weapons. Rather it means that the United States and countries
reasonable enough to follow its lead will give up nuclear weapons. Leaving
them exclusively in the hands of madmen, tyrants and terrorists. That is
the self-destructive Gandhian ideal that the Committee and Obama want to
promote... surrender, helplessness and impotence are the points on the
moral compass of pacifism.

Naturally Obama did not get the Nobel
Peace Prize for anything he actually accomplished. But this actually makes
him a worthy successor to Jimmy Carter, whose unwanted "diplomacy" enabled
North Korea to continue developing nuclear weapons, and Al Gore who made a
movie telling others to live simply, without ever following his own
advice. Both accomplished except to make empty speeches and handicap those
who actually wanted and want to do something constructive. Without
Carter's intervention, half of Asia might not be constantly waiting for
the bomb to drop. And what Carter did for Kim Jong Il, Obama is supposed
to do for the Islamists, a grand devil's bargain to enable mass murder in
the name of peace.

In the face of Nazi terror, Gandhi advised
England to surrender, arguing that fighting the Nazis was worse than
losing to them. There is a free world today only because England, America
and the remains of the civilized world disregarded Gandhi's "noble" ideas
and did the right thing by fighting the Nazi war machine instead. Gandhi's
ideas would not have made the world civilized, as so many today insist,
they would have made the world Nazi. That is the simply truth, perverted
by those who brand the armies of the free world as Nazis, and real Nazis,
as victims.

Those who would apply Gandhi's ideas today to
restrain and throttle the use of force against terrorism, would produce
not a world free of cruelty or violence, but a world broken under the
Islamist boot, a world without freedom, without kindness, mercy or hope.
And where the Bush Doctrine emphasized the right of America to defend
itself and the world, the Obama Doctrine emphasizes multilateral diplomacy
and a willingness to negotiate until the bombs begin falling, and probably
all the way until doomsday itself.

The Nobel Peace Prize has a long
history of rewarding the false diplomacy of the leaders of killers like Le
Duc Tho, Sadat, Desmond Tutu, Gorbachev, Mandela, Arafat and their
enablers like Pauling, Kissinger, MacBride, Peres, Kim Dae Jung, Kofi
Annan, Jimmy Carter, El Baradei and of course Barack Obama. The Nobel
Peace Prize does not foster peace, it fosters only appeasement. Little
wonder that UN agencies won the Nobel Peace Prize six separate times. And
if there is any group of organizations more useless and more disabling to
the free world than the UN, look and be fairly certain that they have
their own Nobel, already or pending.

In 1947, after all the
American, Canadian, British and Australian soldiers who had died fighting
to liberate and bring peace to Europe-- the Nobel Committee instead handed
over the award to the pacifist anti-war Quaker American Friends Service
Committee. This was after giving the award to the ICRC in 1944 whose
conduct during the war had bordered on Nazi collaboration. After the end
of a war which saw Norway itself occupied and liberated and protected from
Nazi and Soviet troops, the Committee saw fit only to go on promoting the
same old pacifist doctrine of appeasement first.

Yet had the
British and Americans decided that a non-violent negotiated solution was
best-- Norway would have gone on being ruled by Nazi Germany until the end
of time. In a truly ironic paradox, had England and America been governed
by the ideas that the Nobel Peace Prizes sought to instill, the prizes,
whose disposal was halted by WW2, would never have been given any, except
perhaps and most appropriately to Vidkun Quisling.

And that in sum
total is what the Nobel Peace Prize amounts to, a trophy for the murderers
cunning enough to get what they want at the negotiating table, and their
pet Quislings. It is only fitting that Obama who has left Eastern Europe
naked in the face of Russian aggression, given Iran an open invitation to
use endless delaying tactics while developing nuclear weapons, enabled
Chavez's Marxist expansionism across South America and is preparing to cut
a deal with the Taliban themselves-- receive the Nobel Peace Prize. Not
for what he has done, but for what he has not done... by way of omission,
stand up to evil.

Obama has made appeasement look cool, which is
all that the committee really values in a patsy, figureheads to turn into
heroes and make the morally indefensible ideas of pacifism more palatable.
Gandhi's ideas on their own are laughable, but when combined with a
saintly figure somehow seem credible as a quasi-religious virtue. Obama's
ideas are equally laughable, but when combined with his manufactured
image, were accepted by large numbers of Americans.

Protesting
that Obama has done nothing to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize misses the
point. It is precisely because Obama has done nothing, but give ridiculous
speeches, that has was given the Nobel Peace Prize in the first place.
Doing nothing is the greatest virtue of pacifism, to lift your hands high
and let the enemy have his way with your country is exactly the sort of
high moral notion that the Nobel Peace Prize. Just ask the various League
of Nations officials, random pacifists and disarmament promoters who
received the award in the 1930's, until Hitler's armies swept across
Europe, temporarily putting an end to the awards.

The Nobel Peace
Prize is no high honor, it is pacifism's highest honor to the conscious
and the misguided appeasers. To receive it is to paint a giant target on
your own country's back. A "Kick Me" sign a hundred feet tall lighting up
the night sky. A white flag waving high.

"As the world celebrates
International Day of Non-violence, US president Barack Obama today said
America has its roots in the India of Mahatma Gandhi." PTI

"I would
like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or
humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what
they want of the countries you call your possessions." - Gandhi