President Donald Trump has done what no other American president was able to—he's brought peace between Arab nations in the Middle East and Israel. As a result of his diplomatic acumen, Trump has now been twice nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. The Atlantic is calling for the abolition of the prize itself.
The left is aghast that a man they hate so much could be responsible for such an outstanding achievement. Their hate for him is so strong that despite incontrovertible evidence that Trump is both anti-war and working diligently toward peace, they would rather disparage peace than change their view on the man.
This rather stellar diplomacy began with Trump's securing an agreement between Israel and the United Arab Emirates.
And now, the nation of Bahrain has teamed with Israel and the US and released a joint statement that the two nations have established full diplomatic relations.
This moment of Arab nations agreeing suddenly that Israel has the right to exist is groundbreaking, and Trump's name has been launched into nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize—twice.
The Federalist's Jordan Davidson notes that "In the Israel and UAE peace deal statement, the White House signaled the United States will be helping Israel continue to facilitate peace in the region with their largely Islamic neighbors." Yet the left continues to bash the deal—simply because they don't like the man who signed it.
The statement from the White House reads: "As a result of this diplomatic breakthrough and at the request of President Trump with the support of the United Arab Emirates, Israel will suspend declaring sovereignty over areas outlined in the President's Vision for Peace and focus its efforts now on expanding ties with other countries in the Arab and Muslim world."
How this achievement—Israel's pulling back from expansion in favour of neighbourly relations—could be derided by anyone who longs for peace is an absolute mystery. That is, unless the sheer unwillingness of the left to recognize any good coming from the Trump administration is realized.
Trump's opposition, from 2016 through the present, has said that he would create wars, but instead he has brought peace. It must be hard for the leftists who hate him not to have a severe case of whiplash right now. Nothing else could explain their determination to still lambast Trump despite his obviously and objectively good diplomatic deals.
In The Atlantic, Graeme Wood attacks not only the nominations, but the nominator who came forward and professed what he had done. Norwegian parliamentarian Christian Tybring-Gjedde said of his putting Trump's name in the Nobel hat, "Can you name a person who has done more for peace than President Trump?"
On Fox, Tybring-Gjedde asked "Do we give the prize to Greta Thunberg, for screaming about the environment? The agreement he made between Israel and the United Arab Emirates could mean peace between Israel and the Arab world. That is like the [Berlin] Wall falling down."
Wood compared Tybring-Gjedde to a mythical Norse troll, the kind that hides out under bridges and wrecks havoc in the lives of Scandivanians unless he or she is not appeased. He attacks the nomination by attacking the nominator. Then Wood goes after the prize committee itself, saying that they've given awards for peace in the past to those who are trying to achieve peace but later fail.
Instead of looking at the diplomatic deals with fresh eyes, and without an implicit bias against the administration that negotiated them, Wood believes that the Trump nom is reason enough to stop giving the prize. He thinks the committee should simply decline to give it, as they have 19 times previously. The last no-award year was 1972.
"Giving the peace prize to no one at all is a tradition the Nobel Committee should revive, perhaps on a permanent basis," Wood writes. "The record of achievement of the peace laureates is so spotty, and the rationales for their awards so eclectic, that the committee should take a long break to consider whether peace is a category coherent enough to be worth recognizing. Peace had its chance, and blew it. The Trump nomination—one of hundreds, including this second from a Swede—helps show why."
Tybring-Gjedde admits that Trump being awarded the top Nobel prize is unlikely. "I know a couple of [the five members of the committee]," he told Wood. "And they are looking for people who should behave a certain way. It's not like chemistry—if they find out you have four divorces and are bad personally, they will never not give you the chemistry prize for that."
For Trump's critics, who are dedicated to being "resisters," or "never-Trumpers," each one of Trump's accomplishments is a blow to their carefully built, fragile defenses against the man. They don't like his bravado, his tone, his demeanor, his style. They don't like his business-centric approach, his bilateral deals, his unwillingness to fund the war machines of other nations.
They don't like his anti-globalist perspective, and they really don't like how much he appeals to a populist streak of Americans who turn out at rallies to hear that no, America doesn't suck, but is a great nation with much to offer her citizens and the world.
Apparently, for Trump's critics, even the establishment of peace, of full diplomatic relations, between Arab nations that have harboured hate for Israel so intense that they question her right to exist, still isn't achievement enough to cure their Trump derangement syndrome.