> To be fair, Mandela did not get it while imprisoned and while the US and the UK were tacit supporters of the Apartheid regime.
To be even more fair, Mandela wasn’t the first anti-apartheid Nobel Peace Prize award, and Albert John Lutuli (awarded 1960) and Archbishop Tutu (awarded 1984) got it for fighting apartheid when the US and UK were tacit (active, of the regime if not the apartheid policy specifically, in 1960) supporters of the apartheid regime (Reagan’s reversal on his “constructive engagement” approach came inmediately after Archbishop Tutu's address to Congress and subsequent meeting with the President after the award.. And Dr. King (awarded 1964) got it for his opposition to the parallel policy in America.
You are right. Although those recipients were clearly in favor of non-violent fighting for human rights and were not explicitly anti-western or anti-US (the definitions of non-recipients this subthread started with) When Dr King began opposing the Vietnam war instead of simply fighting for equal rights at home he became a larger menace.
The definition of non-recipients was never tied to violence. The examples given were Edward Snowden, Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning, all peaceful activists or journalists.
I don't agree that Arafat was fighting any less than Narges Mohammadi when he got the Nobel Peace Prize. He didn't get the prize for surrendering (neither did Mandela but he got the prize after he had already won).
I mean the Philippines is traditionally a US ally, but Duterte both openly criticised the US and tried to get closer to China. And Maria Ressa is definitely not an anti-US or anti-Western activist.
Pakistan's various leaders on the other hand have criticised the U.S far more harshly and far more persistently over the years. They have also had close relations with China for decades.
There are no peace Nobel prizes for such Pakistanis though. Malala got it for figthing for education of young girls. Although I no longer remember how Pakistan got into the discussion and if we're arguing or agreeing :)
You're mistaken about Yasser Arafat. He wasn't awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for fighting Israeli apartheid; rather, he received it for ceasing that fight in line with the Oslo Accords- a deal brokered by the United States.
Arafat was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to make peace in the middle east (as were Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin), not for ceasing his political fight or for giving up his ambitions.
He said: "Peace is in our interest: as only in an atmosphere of just peace shall the Palestinian people achieve their legitimate ambition for independence and sovereignty."
Narges Mohammadi's fight is a peaceful one as well.
I do not disagree that this was a peaceful move, I rather disagree that Yasser Arafat is an example of someone getting the peace prize despite acting against American/Western interest.
The claim that I responded to was essentially that only opponents of anti-Western regimes ever get the Nobel Peace Price. Arafat is a counter example to that.
Arafat's decision to pursue his goals with political means is neither pro- nor anti-Western/Israeli. It was meant to be pro-Palestinian. Hardliners on both sides hated the idea and unfortunately they have prevailed.
There have been a few, such as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasser_Arafat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Ressa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigoberta_Mench%C3%BA