DONALD Trump has been denied the Nobel Peace Prize – despite Israel and Hamas yesterday signing his deal to end the war.
The prize instead was awarded to María Corina Machado – a Venezuelan politician – for her “tireless work promoting democratic rights for the people of Venezuela”.
The President has long dreamed of pocketing the prize, and previously warned it would be a “big insult” if he did not win.
Trump claimed last month he had extinguished seven conflicts around the world across his two terms – with the Gaza war making eight.
All eyes were on Trump’s nomination this year after he campaigned on his own behalf and numerous world leaders endorsed him for the honour.
He has repeatedly insisted he deserves to take home the coveted golden medal, though also admitted he thought it unlikely.
Even Vladimir Putin backed Trump to win.
The Kremlin warmonger said Russia supported Trump’s nomination, but only if he does not supply long-range Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine.
While Trump ripped into Barack Obama last night, who won the award in 2009, fuming: “He got a prize for doing nothing.”
The decision to snub Trump comes the day after Israel and Hamas signed the peace deal Trump designed to end the war and return the hostages.
However, the final meeting of the Norwegian Nobel Committee was held on Monday – meaning the deal-signing wasn’t expected to be taken into account.
Erik Aasheim, spokesman for the Norwegian Nobel Institute, said yesterday: “The final touches were made on Monday, but we never disclose when the Nobel Committee makes its decision.”
Historian Asle Sveen, a specialist in the Nobel Prize, said the agreement between Israel and Hamas would have “absolutely no impact” on this year’s decision.
He claimed that Trump had “given free rein” to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to bomb Gaza – making his selection unlikely.
The President was undoubtedly the only person with enough influence over Benjamin Netanyahu to compel him to overcome his reservations.
He reportedly told the Israeli PM to stop being “so negative”, and made him see the benefit of downing arms.
Assuming all goes to plan, all of the remaining 48 hostages – dead or alive – will be returned to Israel by Monday.
Hamas will disarm and disperse, and Israel will begin withdrawing from the Gaza Strip.
Celebrations erupted on the streets of Gaza and Israel when the news broke on Thursday morning.
Many in Israel, particularly among the hostages’ families, credited Trump with securing peace and broadcast their gratitude.
Some of the families spoke to Trump on the phone soon after he announced “they’re all coming home”.
There were cries of “Thank you”, “You did it” and “This is amazing!”
One said: “Mr. President, we believe in you. We know you’ve done so much for us since you became the president.
“Even before that. And we trust you fulfilled the mission until every hostage, every 48 of the hostages, are home. Thank you so much. Blessed be the peacemakers.”
Those thanks and accolades evidently were not enough to convince the Nobel Committee that Trump’s record deserved the coveted prize – though could be taken into consideration next year.
Trump never made any secret of his peace prize ambitions.
He has repeatedly claimed there is an agenda against him which would prevent him ever pocketing the gold medal.
Trump said last year: “If I were named Obama I would have had the Nobel prize given to me in ten seconds.”
And in February: “They will never give me a Nobel peace prize. I deserve it but they will never give it to me.”
By Patrick Harrington
THE WINNER of the Nobel Peace Prize is chosen through a highly-secretive deliberation process.
Every year since 1901, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has met to discuss who is worthy of taking home the prize.
Nominations close in January, and the Committee comes together throughout the next eight months to confer.
Its five members meet along with a secretary in the Committee Room of Oslo’s Nobel institute.
They read aloud the criteria set out by Alfred Nobel in his will.
It says the prize should be awarded to the person who has done the most for fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies, or for holding or promoting peace congresses.
Then, they enter intense discussions in order to thrash out the decision.
Committee chairman Jorgen Watne Frydnes told the BBC: “We discuss, we argue, there is a high temperature.
“But also, of course, we are civilised, and we try to make a consensus-based decision every year.”
If there is no consensus over who should win, then it goes comes down to a simple majority vote.
