Al Gore got it for raising awareness of climate change. Obama got that for not being Bush. Even if Snowden gets it, it doesn't really matter.
They've made premature or outright bad calls before.
Rabin and Arafat (and Peres) tried, with the Oslo accords, to move toward a settlement of a long-standing, violent dispute. They didn't completely succeed. And indeed, you could argue (as many do) that the Oslo accords were a mistake. But they were willing to take risks in order to perhaps make things more peaceful for their people, and that's the sort of thing that the Nobel Committee wanted to reward.
Of course, now that I've described things in this way, maybe Snowden is an appropriate recipient...
"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.*
IMO it should be like the other Nobel Prizes, awarded later when the things have settled. The Science prizes were changed to include a lag allowing for discoveries to face scientific rigor for a while. I think they should adopt the same policy. Wait until a war ends before handing out a prize to those who end it.
I'm sorry, what? You aren't sure if Rabin and Arafat "intended to create peace"? What exactly do you think they were intending?
What makes you say this? You don't think the Israelis and the Palestinians actually want peace (albeit on their own terms)?
Of course, we're making a huge generalization here, plenty of people on both sides don't have this as their goal and certainly want peace, which can only be achieved through coexistence. But when coexistence is not your goal, when the ideal terms for both parties is the dissolution of the other, then no; there can really be no peace.
Edit: btw I'm not really talking about the specifics of Yasser Arafat & Yitzhak Rabin listed by the OP, just your statement, which implied something more general then just those two.
There is a very large gap between wanting something and being willing to truly prioritize it and sacrifice for it for the common good.
That's probably what he's is going to be remembered for. Poor guy.
Note: Not saying Anwar al-Awlaki was a good guy, or blameless, or anything of the sort. But it is still killing an American citizen from afar without so much as a thought of a trial.
Hence, the right to a trial comes simply from the fact of being a person. No citizenship or residency required.
(I grant that reconciling this with acts of war makes it much more murky)
At least if they had given it to him for being black, they wouldn't be lying through their teeth
The problem is, despite appearances, the new boss is the same as the old boss.