Post New

...if there is no double cross.

Trump says Israel and Hamas have agreed to first phase of Gaza peace deal, paving way for ceasefire

US President Donald Trump says Israel and Hamas have agreed to the first phase of his Gaza peace deal

In a post on social media, he writes "ALL of the Hostages will be released very soon" and "Israel will withdraw their Troops to an agreed upon line"

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cx2nzlj2j4kt

The late BBC news said all the Israeli hostages are expected to be released Monday.

I just hope there isn't a double cross. The major pressure "Bibi" has been getting, is from Israeli voters, demanding the hostages be returned. Once they have all the hostages, would Bibi really care what anyone else says, if he resumes killing large numbers of Pals, daily?

Steve

Indeed. And Trump will deserve tons of credit if this ends up stopping the current war in Gaza. Perhaps even that Peace Prize he's longed for so openly...

And Trump will deserve tons of credit if this ends up stopping the current war in Gaza. Perhaps even that Peace Prize he's longed for so openly...

There has been at least one Nobel Prize recipient who was later revealed to be a pedophile...
D. Carleton Gajdusek, who won the Nobel Prize in Physiology in 1976 for his groundbreaking research on prion diseases.

So I guess Trump has a chance!

Indeed. And Trump will deserve tons of credit if this ends up stopping the current war in Gaza. Perhaps even that Peace Prize he's longed for so openly...

Will he, now. And so help me if he does. We'll NEVER hear the end of it if Trump actually does receive the Nobel Prize.

Do Nobel Peace prizes usually get awarded for relatively recent events? Or is it sometimes like the Nobel prizes for the sciences that often take decades to be awarded?

Do Nobel Peace prizes usually get awarded for relatively recent events? Or is it sometimes like the Nobel prizes for the sciences that often take decades to be awarded?

The Camp David accords were announced in September, 1978, the evening of the original "Battlestar Galactica" TV series premier. The prizes were presented to Sadat and Begin December 10, 78. Carter, the facilitator of the accords, was not awarded a Nobel until 2002. Following that pattern, "Bibi" and whoever heads Hamas would receive prizes, but not Trump.

Steve

Following that pattern, "Bibi" and whoever heads Hamas would receive prizes, but not Trump.

So, there's some hope that Trump won't get the prize, at least not any time soon. My vote would be for never, not even posthumously.

ceasefire is not peace, and there are 3 parties with little trust.
broker trump has been manipulated by bibi at every turn, as told by actual events.

kalshi does not have odds on durable peace, but will be along the lines of # casualties in war-torn Abergeriastan.

The Camp David accords were announced in September, 1978, the evening of the original "Battlestar Galactica" TV series premier. The prizes were presented to Sadat and Begin December 10, 78. Carter, the facilitator of the accords, was not awarded a Nobel until 2002. Following that pattern, "Bibi" and whoever heads Hamas would receive prizes, but not Trump.

Similarly, Kissinger and Le Duc Tho received their Peace Prizes shortly after the negotiation of the Vietnam War cease fire as well. Note that those two were the facilitators of the ceasefire, not the heads of state that agreed to it, so there's also precedent for awarding the negotiator rather than the parties directly.

Honestly, I can easily see the Nobel Committee preferring to give the prize to Trump than to either the leader of Hamas (a terrorist organization that was the precipitator of the current horrible phase of the conflict) or to Netanyahu (who they probably regard as even more of a war criminal than the allegations against Kissinger).

Honestly, I can easily see the Nobel Committee preferring to give the prize to Trump than to either the leader of Hamas (a terrorist organization that was the precipitator of the current horrible phase of the conflict) or to Netanyahu (who they probably regard as even more of a war criminal than the allegations against Kissinger).

Me, too, especially if they see a political advantage in doing so: Peace with The Donald.

But how about not giving it to any of them? At least just yet...

Pete

But how about not giving it to any of them? At least just yet...

If the ceasefire holds? I can't see that as being an option. There is widespread consensus that this has been one of the worst ongoing conflicts in the world, and one where there was considerable pessimism about it coming to any kind of quick conclusion. If the war ends with this effort, it is going to be very hard for the Committee to identify some other event that is more appropriate to acknowledge. Maybe if another major global conflict ends before the next prize is awarded (Russia-Ukraine?), but if not then this will be the Biggest Deal in World Peace for the Committee to consider....

My vote would be for never, not even posthumously.

Just curious, would you be ok if he got the award posthumously if it was awarded tomorrow? 😁

Me, too, especially if they see a political advantage in doing so: Peace with The Donald.

Yes, I can imagine the constant bellowing and whining, if Trump doesn't get the prize.

Steve

broker trump has been manipulated by bibi at every turn, as told by actual events.

Which is why I suspect the chances are non-zero that, the moment the Israeli hostages are free, "Bibi" will go back to his war of genocide.

Steve

Just curious, would you be ok if he got the award posthumously if it was awarded tomorrow? 😁/i>

Yeah, I'd be down with that.

Yes, I can imagine the constant bellowing and whining, if Trump doesn't get the prize.

It will be worse if he gets it!

If the ceasefire holds?

How long does it have to hold for it to be considered that peace has been attained? A week? A month?

How long does it have to hold for it to be considered that peace has been attained? A week? A month?

Don't know. That's up to the Committee. Though I don't think that's really going to end up being much of an issue. Per media reports, they already selected this year's winner on Monday, and they won't meet again before the Prize is announced. Since it probably wasn't Trump, he'd first be considered for the 2026 Prize - which means that the Committee will have had a full year to assess what happens as a result of the ceasefire.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/dampening-trumps-cha...

If the ceasefire holds? I can't see that as being an option. There is widespread consensus that this has been one of the worst ongoing conflicts in the world, and one where there was considerable pessimism about it coming to any kind of quick conclusion.

If the ceasefire holds, and over time the conflict appears to have resolved, he'd deserve it. I might smh with chagrin, but I'd also be very happy to shake my head with chagrin in this case. It'd be worth it.

Crossing my fingers.

Per media reports, they already selected this year's winner on Monday, and they won't meet again before the Prize is announced. Since it probably wasn't Trump,

Please be Biden, please be Biden... 😉

If the ceasefire holds, and over time the conflict appears to have resolved, he'd deserve it. I might smh with chagrin, but I'd also be very happy to shake my head with chagrin in this case. It'd be worth it.

Does the entirety of actions come into play? If Trump manages to incite a civil war in the U.S. does he still deserve a Nobel even if the Israel/Hamas conflict seems to have been ended, at least for a time? And how much did Trump really have to do with it? Does threatening complete obliteration (of Hamas) if peace isn't agreed to a worthy means to a noble (and Nobel) end?

Does the entirety of actions come into play? If Trump manages to incite a civil war in the U.S. does he still deserve a Nobel even if the Israel/Hamas conflict seems to have been ended, at least for a time? And how much did Trump really have to do with it? Does threatening complete obliteration (of Hamas) if peace isn't agreed to a worthy means to a noble (and Nobel) end?

Well, they gave it to Kissinger - and he wasn't exactly Mother Theresa, by any stretch.

I don't know that the Committee has any set rules on how they make their decisions, other than the general criteria of the award: 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" during the preceding year.

I think any fair assessment would be that Trump had everything to do with this. This was a ceasefire that came about because of his bullying and threats to both Hamas and Netanyahu. He created the pressure (and the permission structure) for Netanyahu to take hostages being returned for an answer; he created the pressure and the incentives on the other countries in the region to tell Hamas that their time was up.

If the Nobel committee considers the candidates negatives-

-murdering civilians in non-military vessels
-military invasions of US cities
-suggesting Russia/Ukraine are like kids fighting on the playground that just need to be allowed to fight until..?
-felony conviction
-adjudicated rapist

and weigh those against one positive -a 'maybe deal' that is ostensibly being made for his own financial gain (Trump Gaza Beach Resort).

Trump's motivation isn't peace. It's pandering to the evangelical bloc for its support and possible financial gain for TrumpCo.

... thumbs down this year & every year thereafter.

Trump's motivation isn't peace. It's pandering to the evangelical bloc for its support and possible financial gain for TrumpCo.

... thumbs down this year & every year thereafter.

Agreed. Take that, Albaby! 😊 Sadly, I'd bet it's the results that the Nobel Committee cares about, not the motivations, which are impossible to know for a fact, no matter how much WE know what motivates Trump.

Agreed. Take that, Albaby! 😊 Sadly, I'd bet it's the results that the Nobel Committee cares about, not the motivations, which are impossible to know for a fact, no matter how much WE know what motivates Trump.

Again, this is a prize that Henry Kissinger won. Literally the modern poster child for realpolitik. So I wouldn't be shocked if the Committee decided not to look to closely into why someone stopped a horrific war....

Agreed. Take that, Albaby! 😊 Sadly, I'd bet it's the results that the Nobel Committee cares about, not the motivations, which are impossible to know for a fact, no matter how much WE know what motivates Trump.

I would hope the Nobel committee would see what Trump is doing to his own country as a disqualifying factor in any consideration for a Peace Prize.

So I wouldn't be shocked if the Committee decided not to look to closely into why someone stopped a horrific war....

Hasn't the war already been fought and won by Israel?

It was bound to end sooner than later. Trump is the carpetbagger coming in to distribute the loot.

And, the deal ain't done until the fat lady sings.

Hasn't the war already been fought and won by Israel?

No. The war could have dragged on for the foreseeable future.

It was bound to end sooner than later.

As are all wars. The reason there were so many calls for a ceasefire over the last two years - which ceasefire never came - is because wars can last a long time and they're horrible for the people involved in them why they happened.

And, the deal ain't done until the fat lady sings.

That is certainly accurate. But it is churlish to diminish the enormity of a ceasefire being agreed to, especially given how unbelievably far away the parties (Hamas, Netanyahu) were from getting to that point. This is an astounding accomplishment, if it gets implemented. Democrats and progressives will make themselves look foolish if they pretend it isn't, especially since this exact thing - a ceasefire - is what they have been elevating as the most important thing that they wanted to happen in Gaza, and underlay nearly all of their criticisms of Biden's policy on Gaza.

It was bound to end sooner than later.
----------------
As are all wars.

All wars are not bound to end sooner than later. The bulk of Gaza has been cleared. Hamas is in no position to mount an offensive response. They're on the ropes, so to speak.

Compare that to WW2 where despite nearly 5 yrs of intense combat, the fighting was so intense in the Pacific that it took atomic bombs, several months later, to convince the last of the Axis, Japan, to sign and 'sing.'
Wasn't the logic of the bombs to stop the huge loss of life that would have resulted from continued fighting?

I ain't hearing no singing from no minaret.

Meanwhile, this week my cousin honored her mother (my Aunt), who survived the Holocaust and her first husband who died in Auschwitz with the installation of Stolpersteine markers at their home in Amsterdam where they were arrested in 1942.

All wars are not bound to end sooner than later. The bulk of Gaza has been cleared. Hamas is in no position to mount an offensive response. They're on the ropes, so to speak.

Compare that to WW2 where despite nearly 5 yrs of intense combat, the fighting was so intense in the Pacific that it took atomic bombs, several months later, to convince the last of the Axis, Japan, to sign and 'sing.'

I think I'm now confused as to what you're trying to say. My point above was that stopping the fighting was a significant accomplishment, if indeed the current agreement ends up stopping the fighting. That this war still had years left in it. I thought you were saying that this war was already over, so it's not a big deal to stop it - but your point above about Japan is more in line with what I was saying than what I thought your point was. Japan basically lost WW2 at least a year and a half before they surrendered - if someone had been able to broker the end of the war in the Pacific in mid-1944, that would have been a massive and important accomplishment.

It doesn't matter that Hamas was in no position to mount an "offensive response." As long as they held hostages, Israel was going to keep fighting to try to get them back. As long as Israel kept fighting, Hamas would keep winning (in their eyes) in the court of global opinion. Both sides had all the incentive to keep fighting and fighting, for quite a long time.

If the current proposal ends up interrupting that, it will be a huge accomplishment - and Trump (and his team) will deserve credit for making it happen.

That is certainly accurate. But it is churlish to diminish the enormity of a ceasefire being agreed to, especially given how unbelievably far away the parties (Hamas, Netanyahu) were from getting to that point. This is an astounding accomplishment, if it gets implemented.

Sorry, but I refuse to give Trump any more than the tiniest modicum of credit for this possible peace deal. Maybe some of his cabinet deserves a little more credit, but I think it's also quite likely that the war was nearing its natural end anyway and Trump just happened to be in power to grift the benefit. But perhaps my extreme TDS is clouding my thinking. 😉

Israel was going to keep fighting to try to get them back

At this point, was Hamas really fighting back or playing rope-a-dope.

Israel's current actions are militarily unopposed, right?

At this point, was Hamas really fighting back or playing rope-a-dope.

Israel's current actions are militarily unopposed, right?

No. There's a reason they can't just walk through the tunnels in Gaza at will. If they do, Hamas will kill their soldiers.

It's a similar asymmetric dynamic we keep talking about in Ukraine. Hamas can't displace Israel from the places Israel is, but Israel can't eliminate Hamas and can't go into the places that Hamas holds. Hamas could have kept doing this for a very long time, as long as they held hostages; Israel could have kept doing this for a very long time, as long as Hamas held the hostages. The fighting could have gone on for quite a while longer.

If the current proposal ends up interrupting that, it will be a huge accomplishment - and Trump (and his team) will deserve credit for making it happen.

Thanks for your earlier responses to me. Yes, he deserves it if he remains on good behavior for next year. :) Fat chance. On a side note it looks like justice will bend and declare Antifa a foreign terror org, . if so, we could find US citizens rounded up and accused, possibly given short shrift of their rights and shipped to overseas prisons, or held domestically . This kind of power is extremely disturbing and we appear to be headed that direction.

No. There's a reason they can't just walk through the tunnels in Gaza at will. If they do, Hamas will kill their soldiers.


I'm exceeding my daily time limit on social media so I'll just close with this:

It was basically a mop-up action, more or less unopposed by Hamas.

Hamas could read the abjad on the wall.

It was all over but for the cryin'.

Question:

What did the Felon really do? How could he (or anyone) built Hamas into anything? He had some leverage over Israel, but not Hamas. He has nothing they want or need, and imposing tariffs (or any other measure) would be useless.

Bully. Not built. Oops

What did the Felon really do? How could he (or anyone) bully Hamas into anything?

He worked around them.

The deal he cut wasn't with Hamas - it was the other countries in the region. He got them to come out in support of his deal, and to let Hamas know that they had to go. Publicly. His pitch to them (apparently) was that he would tell Israel that annexation of Gaza was off the table, force them to accept "yes" for an answer to get their hostages back, initiate a ceasefire, and that all sorts of development goodies/better relations with the U.S. were on the table. The alternative was the Full Wrath of Trump - this was now important to him, and he would punish All Who Balked Him. And He Will Not Be Balked!

So they threw their weight behind the Trump plan - which made it untenable for Hamas to hold out against it. Once Trump got Qatar and Saudi Arabia on board, they lost any realistic opportunity for a different outcome. The deal was the deal, there were no longer alternatives to be had through negotiations now that they've lost all their intermediaries....so they took the deal.

As others have pointed out, that doesn't mean they've given up their ambitions. They might yet break the deal, or they might shift their fight and tactics to a post-Trump Plan world. But they had to publicly accept the deal.

As others have pointed out, that doesn't mean they've given up their ambitions. They might yet break the deal, or they might shift their fight and tactics to a post-Trump Plan world. But they had to publicly accept the deal.

Keep in mind, the prisoner/hostage exchange, and Israeli ground troop pullback, is only "phase 1". Once "Bibi" declares himself a hero for getting all the hostages back, they can declare "phase 2" at an impasse, and, with the ground troops out of the way, finish the job of leveling Gaza. Does anyone think his nibs would hold to his position of no Israeli annexation of Gaza or the West Bank, after not receiving a Nobel?

Let that sink in for a moment: having troops descend on US civilian populations, and blowing up civilian boats without giving the occupants a chance to surrender, is Trump in his best "peacemaker" pose. Now, who will he target his anger at, for not getting the Nobel?

Steve...has watched honchos receive bad news, then look around the office for someone to yell at.

Keep in mind, the prisoner/hostage exchange, and Israeli ground troop pullback, is only "phase 1". Once "Bibi" declares himself a hero for getting all the hostages back, they can declare "phase 2" at an impasse, and, with the ground troops out of the way, finish the job of leveling Gaza. Does anyone think his nibs would hold to his position of no Israeli annexation of Gaza or the West Bank, after not receiving a Nobel?

Certainly a scenario. But if the war breaks out again - especially if it breaks out soon after the release of the hostages - then Trump isn't going to get a Nobel, and he certainly won't deserve one for having failed to engineer a peace that lasts more than a few short days or weeks.

But I think this understates the effect that successful implementation of Phase 1, and Trump's recent bullying of Netanyahu, will have on Israel's policy going forward. The holding of the hostages gave Netanyahu a powerful casus belli to keep the country engaged in active fighting in Gaza for two years, and strengthened his domestic situation. Netanyahu then unsurprisingly built his domestic and foreign policy around that war. But in so doing, he went "all in" on President Trump - Israel has lost many (most?) of their other allies abroad, and much of their non-MAGA support in the U.S. Which was fine, as long as Netanyahu kept Trump entirely in his corner. He was able to placate his domestic coalition by pointing to the rock-solid support from Trump as sufficient to make up for all the other lost support. However, now that Trump is all that Netanyahu has, Trump has a lot of power over Netanyahu. Netanyahu probably can't survive domestically if Trump were to attack him personally and completely suspend U.S. military support for Israel (which Trump could do, even where no Democrat could). Netanyahu might be aiming for some autarkic independence, but Israel isn't there yet, which means Trump can crush him if he wanted to.

Which is why Trump was able to force Netanyahu to apologize to Qatar, and force him to agree to the Trump Plan in the first place - even though it has things that Netanyahu absolutely did not want to publicly agree to, even if he has no intention of living up to those agreements. Netanyahu could ignore Biden, knowing that Biden politically couldn't take any real reprisals against him. He will have much more difficulty ignoring Trump.

Anything is possible. But if the hostages are returned, Netanyahu is in a much weaker position to fight against what Trump wants.

Thanks for that interpretation. I have some reservations about how much Hamas could have done regardless. They weren't even able to wage asymmetric warfare. They had nothing left. But I suspect pressure on other nations that might have supported Hamas couldn't hurt.

As you say, no one has changed their goals, so far as I can tell. So it's going to flare up again, barring some major changes in attitudes. If the Felon affected those attitude changes, then he might actually deserve the prize. Or at least consideration. There are a lot of folks working for peace and freedom that don't have the Felon's megaphone. Like this year's winner. So he wouldn't be a shoe-in next year, either. But I will concede that if he changes attitudes, then he should be in the running.

But I think this understates the effect that successful implementation of Phase 1, and Trump's recent bullying of Netanyahu, will have on Israel's policy going forward. The holding of the hostages gave Netanyahu a powerful casus belli to keep the country engaged in active fighting in Gaza for two years, and strengthened his domestic situation.

I would propose that the hostages were "Bibi's" one vulnerability. What were the public demonstrations by Israeli voters about? Where they feeling for Pals? No. Their primary concern has been for the hostages. Now "Bibi" is a hero for agreeing to a scheme to bring the hostages home.

As for the "pressure" from his nibs, he wanted a Nobel. I propose he put on a dog and pony show to wrap himself in the mantle of "peacemaker".

Consider the possibility that, the moment the hostages are safely back in Israel, some pretext is found to resume the war, because a big part of Bibi's base wants Gaza and the West Bank annexed. Trump didn't get the Nobel, so he won't care. And they will both blame the Pals.

Ever read "Decent Interval" by Frank Snepp? The title references a scenario that is backed up, to a degree, by Nixon administration documents.

Decent interval is a theory regarding the end of the Vietnam War which argues that from 1971 or 1972, the Nixon Administration abandoned the goal of preserving South Vietnam and instead aimed to save face by preserving a "decent interval" between withdrawal and South Vietnamese collapse. Therefore, President Richard Nixon could avoid becoming the first United States president to lose a war.

A variety of evidence from the Nixon tapes and from transcripts of meetings with foreign leaders is cited to support this theory, including Henry Kissinger's statement before the 1973 Paris Peace Accords that "our terms will eventually destroy him"[1] (referring to South Vietnamese president Nguyễn Văn Thiệu). However, both Kissinger and Nixon denied that such a strategy existed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decent_interval

Steve...cynics R us

As you say, no one has changed their goals, so far as I can tell. So it's going to flare up again, barring some major changes in attitudes.

Goals haven't changed, but capabilities have. Hamas was weakened by Israel's direct attacks, to be sure. But they were also weakened by home much Iran has been diminished, both from Israel's actions and the fall of Assad in Syria. The entire regional power dynamic has been upended. At the start of the war, Iran was a strong regional hegemon with strong clients that was a threat to the entire area; now they are much more enfeebled.

That's what created the opening for this. Trump has essentially offered the Sunni nations in the region a completely reworked security proposition. A tight alliance with the U.S., in close cooperation with Israel, and everyone gets to keep their existing political situations in place the way they want to - but Hamas has to go. Those nations got on board, even nations that have been traditionally more solicitous to the Palestinian cause and Hamas specifically (like Qatar). They're willing to throw Hamas under the bus and throw their weight behind the PA or some successor entity - or even foreign occupation of Gaza - in order to get that deal done.

That's a deal those nations can get from Trump but couldn't get from any other American President. Trump is singularly, utterly, and completely uninterested in the fact that these are authoritarian repressive states with serious human rights issues. He doesn't care about any of the things that diplomats or other government leaders or NGO's typically care about. He wants his deal, he wants the area to be open for business, and he wants a piece of the business. They can cement a broader version of the Abraham Accords and lock in with the U.S. and Israel without having to implement any unwanted domestic changes.

That's why you see the Qatari installation in Idaho. They're cutting their deal with Trump, and they're realists. They know that we change our political leaders. Trump's going to let these countries get some facts on the ground to cement these relationships. Stuff that's better than treaties in a world that trades less on legal niceties and more on raw power and those facts on the ground, and where treaties would need to have all that annoying human rights stuff in them to get through our Senate. Trump's going to embrace all those bloodstained, repressive authoritarian leaders so hard that that they will be assured that it will reverberate after he's gone from office.

That's the deal - a security arrangement with the U.S. and (eventually) Israel that's worth more than the domestic indigestion that comes from picking a side in the Hamas/PA struggle and giving Israel something they want against the Palestinians. Hamas loses all support from everyone (except Iran), they come out publicly against them and in support of foreign occupation of Gaza...but they get to be America's best buddies for the next 3.2 years, notwithstanding their repressive political systems that had made it difficult in the past for them to have that overt relationship.

Consider the possibility that, the moment the hostages are safely back in Israel, some pretext is found to resume the war, because a big part of Bibi's base wants Gaza and the West Bank annexed. Trump didn't get the Nobel, so he won't care. And they will both blame the Pals.

Oh, that's certainly a possibility. But a "pretext" isn't as effective as 251 Israeli hostages. A big part of Netanyahu's base wants Gaza, but the electorate outside his base is generally tired of war, tired of their soldiers being in harm's way, and tired of Israel's precipitous collapse in world opinion. And not much interested in annexing Gaza. Netanyahu will find it much, much harder to march off to war in Gaza than he did two years ago. The hostages weren't Netanyahu's one vulnerability - they were the thing that kept the domestic electorate 100% agreed on at least one goal. They differed on how to get that goal, but they were unified around the idea that Israel had to get the hostages back, whether by force or bargain. And certainly some of the folks who supported the war did so because they felt the hostages were worth fighting to get back....but not that the ruins of Gaza are worth annexing.

Israel will celebrate the return of the hostages, but once the focus turns away from getting them back and more towards the security failures of 10/7 and what future Israeli policy should look like, Netanyahu's going to be on much weaker footing. Hamas can always be relied on to do the wrong thing, and no doubt they will offer something that might re-engage hostilities - but it will be much, much harder for Netanyahu to rally a war-weary Israel into a second invasion of Gaza.

Still possible, to be sure. But I think there's now a good chance that most of Israel is perfectly happy to let Gaza be occupied by Trump's "Board of Peace" rather than Israeli troops - or at least enough that Netanyahu can't get the war restarted.

The reason this *might* work.

There's tons of money and construction and tourism involved.

In the end, the Hamas leaders will be given money, concubines, and shares of ownership in the new mecca hotspot.

The cousins aren't *that* different from each other.


No further comment needed.

Either way good it it works. Less Americans dying for our Israeli masters.

Trump didn't get the Nobel, so he won't care.

Uncertain.

Given the timelines involved, that was an unrealistic expectation to begin with - for THIS year (he got an endorsement from the actual winner though).

As revolting as it is, it may still be on the cards for next year.

Given the timelines involved, that was an unrealistic expectation to begin with - for THIS year

As noted previously, the Camp David Accords were announced in September 78. Sadat and Begin were awarded the prize on October 27, 78, and presented with their prizes on December 10, 78. The Google net sifter says the prize is usually awarded on the Friday of the first full week in October, so the 78 award appears to have been a few weeks late. Perhaps the Nobel committee had been so impressed with the achievement, that they waited for a couple extra weeks while they considered the implications? If anything, acceptance of Trump's scheme for Gaza was only a few weeks late.

His nibs has been quoted as saying this year's award was actually for 2024, as if he thinks he still has a chance for next year. But what are the chances he can still posture as "peacemaker" for another year, without burning down a country or city, for the bad form of not doing what he tells them to do? Even now, troops on the streets of major US cities, and dead bodies floating in the Caribbean do not look very peaceable.

(he got an endorsement from the actual winner though).

Yes, she is astute enough to realize how Trump requires everyone to grovel to him. During the plague, I remember Trump's complaints about how "ungrateful" the Michigan Gov was to him. Gov Whitmer immediately started gushing "we are SOOO GRATEFUL" every time Trump's name came up wrt plague economic assistance programs.

Steve

Sadat and Begin were awarded the prize on October 27, 78, and presented with their prizes on December 10, 78.

Here is the view of the GPT net sifter, which correlates with my understanding:


In 1978, the Nobel Peace Prize could be awarded swiftly after the Camp David Accords because Sadat and Begin had already been nominated based on earlier peace efforts. The Accords simply sealed the deal.

In 2025, if Trump’s case for Gaza-related diplomacy wasn’t already on the table by January 31, then it couldn’t be considered — and if it was, the committee likely found it insufficient or incompatible with the prize’s criteria.

Watching live coverage on the BBC right now. The first seven living hostages are in the hands of the Red Cross.

Apparently, there are three pickup zones in northern, central, and southern Gaza. The Red Cross will deliver the people to an Israeli military base, where they will be triaged. They will then be loaded on a group of CH-53 helos that landed at the base about an hour ago, and flown to hospital.

Steve

Massive crowd in the square in Tel Aviv. PA system playing this song:

Skylar Grey - I'm coming home (Lyrics)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffA0veKqtW8

Steve

The first seven have been handed over to the IDF. The Beeb showed a large cloud of dust in the field at the RE'IM base, where the helos are parked, but I did not see a helo take off.

Steve

Trump just landed at Ben Gurion airport.

Steve

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.