A better choice for the Nobel Peace Prize

Posted: October 9th, 2009 | Author: | Filed under: In the News | Tags: , , , | 4 Comments »
vanunu in Jerusalm, soon after his release from prison

Vanunu in Jerusalem, soon after his release from prison

As much as I admire President Barack Obama’s style and what seems like a genuine effort to introduce a new tone to international politics, I still think Mordechai Vanunu was a better choice for the Nobel Peace Prize.

After being kidnapped in Rome by the Mossad, Vanunu, an Israeli citizen, served 18 years in prison, 11 of them in solitary confinement, for exposing some details on Israel’s nuclear program. Five years ago he finished serving his full sentence, but he is still not allowed to leave the country or to talk to the press, even though he has no more information to reveal.

In its decision today, the Nobel comity noted the “special importance” it has given “to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.”

There are very few living people who paid such a dear price for this vision as Mordechai Vanunu.


4 Comments on “A better choice for the Nobel Peace Prize”

  1. 1 Yael said at 11:43 am on October 9th, 2009:

    Unfortunately, Vanunu is still considered a traitor by most Israelis and his nomination has always been for the “alternative Nobel Peace Prize”, not the official one. But perhaps, as is the case with the Oscars, it’s often not the people who deserve the award who end up receiving it:) Having said tha, Obama is still a very good choice, in my opinion. If he succeeds in making a much needed change in the Middle East as he had promised, we could all share in the celebrations. What has become obvious already is that the Israeli Right is threatened by this choice. That is already a very good sign.

  2. 2 noam said at 12:12 pm on October 9th, 2009:

    I agree. People hear Vanunu’s name and that’s where the conversation end. I don’t understand why exactly, but he is considered even worse than Mazpen people or any other “traitor”. And all he did was tell the world what everybody already knew.

    As for Obama, I tend to agree as well, and I don’t have a problem with giving him the prize “before he did something”, like people say. It’s only that I prefer it when common people, rather than world leaders, get the prize. It’s the leaders’ job to bring peace and happiness, and should not be praised as an exception.

  3. 3 Jorgen said at 12:21 pm on October 9th, 2009:

    It’s hard to understand how an intelligent person like yourself can’t see the huge disaster this man could have bring to the middle east if he hadn’t been so stupid at doing that he tried to do. The mossad, which we all love to hate so much, saved alot of lives.
    He maybe doesn’t deserve the punishment he got, but giving him any prize will be a stupid waste even in comparison to the one Arafat got – a decision the prize commitee is still embarrassed about I’m sure.

  4. 4 noam said at 12:42 pm on October 9th, 2009:

    Jorgen – what’s the “huge disaster”? Exposing the fact the Israel has nukes? Letting the world know where they are built? Everyone knew that. Vanunu didn’t expose anything. He didn’t spy for the Iranian intelligence. He went public. He was questioning policy – Israel’s nuclear policy. His abduction, trail, punishment, and what’s going on now – that’s revenge, pure and simple.

    If he was Iraqi, North Korean or Iranian, you would have called him a hero.