But what is the moral of the story of Obama’s theory mixing? Logical inconsistency? No, that the real world is significantly more complex than what either of those theories portrays it as, and that any government drawing on just one way of analyzing the world has a much smaller toolbox to choose from when trying to understand what’s going on and what to do about it.

Just having an American president that has relaxed the hardcore neo-Conservative thinking of the White House seems to me to be important enough for world peace to justify a Nobel Peace Prize all on its own, regardless of the greatness of his future achievements.

Awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama is certainly an unexpected and interesting choice by the Norwegian Nobel Committee. On the one hand, awarding it to a person with a nine month history of involvement on the scene of international diplomacy may seem odd. On the other hand, awarding the prize based on work towards international diplomacy and multilateralism must be considered a return to the original intent expressed by Alfred Nobel in his will.

Some critics claim that awarding it to the man that advocated stepping up the military effort in Afghanistan is outrageous. Awarding the prize to someone who has shown himself willing to use military force is however nothing new. Theodore Roosevelt (1917), Henry Kissinger (1973) and Mikhail Gorbachev (1990) are examples of statesmen who aren’t remembered as always being soft when it came to the application of power.

More substantial is the criticism that Obama hasn’t actually achieved anything yet. He has been in office for 9 months. During this time he has taken many initiatives to promote multilateralism and change America’s position in the world, but he has yet to get any results. I can’t off the top of my head remember any laureate with so little to show for himself in terms of actual achievement. Still, the will of Alfred Nobel, the mandate of the prize, states that the Nobel Prizes should be given to: “…those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind.” Who did more during the last 12 months than Barack Obama?

For the peace prize specifically, it shall according to the will go 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.” Once again, it serves as a good description of Obama’s agenda, promoting the UN, promoting mulitlateralism in general and working for nuclear disarmament.

The comittee has been under a lot of fire in recent years for overstepping these bounds by laureates such as Wangari Maathai (2004), Mohammad Yunnus and Grameen Bank (2006) and Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007). With last year’s prize to Matti Ahtisari and this year’s to Barack Obama they have certainly returned to “the roots” with prices for traditional peace work by Nobel’s own definitions.

Lastly, awarding the prize to an active world leader with future achievements to make rather than in retrospect for past achievements may help the prize further in contributing to making actual peace in the world. Giving the prize to the person in the world best positioned to make actual progress on the matter may put additional pressure on the American president to deliver on his promises.

All in all I’m surprised at the award, but pleasantly so.

It seems there are a great number of people out there with an interest in portraying Norway as a country of Jew-haters who wish to see Israel destroyed. From my experience, that couldn’t be further from the truth. With the obvious exception of both the extreme right and the extreme left, there seems to me like there is very little hate of Jews and Israel in Norway. There is, however, much sympathy for Palestinians and much resentment over the actions of the Israeli state. This should not be confused. Critique of the so-called Operation Cast Lead aka. the Gaza Massacre is not equal to hate of Israel. Support for UN resolutions condemning the separation wall is not anti-Semitism.

It appears like elements within the Israeli government want to keep the conflict level up, possibly to maintain an image of Israel as a victim and weaken Norway’s position as a peace negotiator in the region. This is a bad and dangerous idea. It serves to further isolate Israel from the rest of the world, making it easier to rally domestic support for outrageous policies. The proposal of an academic boycott is equally bad and will only add a new layer of insulation and make the work of internal critics in Israel more difficult.

Dialogue is the key, but good dialogue doesn’t start with accusing your opponents of being evil or confusing well-reasoned critique with hateful attacks.

These figures are rather amazing. There seems to be only one country where the people don’t think Obama is more likely to do the right thing in international affairs – Israel. And the relationship between Israel and the US can hardly be said to be much like the relationship with any other country…