For a leader who relished being described as the ultimate dealmaker and who openly coveted the Nobel Peace Prize, President Donald Trump’s approach to the Israel–Palestine conflict may continue to keep the award out of his grasp as it did this year. Trump never hid his ambition for the prize but, rather than positioning himself as an honest arbiter, he undermined any serious claim to lasting peace in the Middle East by consistently promoting and amplifying the West’s long-standing policy of appeasement toward Israel at the expense of Palestinian rights and aspirations.
Trump’s Middle East policy, both during his first presidency and in his return to global influence, has been marked by an almost unquestioning alignment with the Israeli ultra light elements within and outside government. This alignment was not subtle as it was loudly proclaimed and symbolically reinforced through a series of dubious and consequential decisions. For instance, the unilateral recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, the relocation of the U.S. embassy, the effective endorsement of settlement expansion in in Palestinian territories, and the political marginalisation of Palestinian leadership all signalled a decisive tilt toward Israel’s most hardline and untenable positions. These policies closely mirrored the preferences of Israel’s ultraright and nationalist factions, while offering Palestinians nothing more than rhetorical acknowledgment.
While these moves were celebrated by pro-Israel constituencies within the United States and applauded by certain European allies eager to maintain strategic ties with Washington, they exacted a heavy diplomatic cost. Chief among these was the erosion of America’s credibility as a neutral mediator. For decades, however the United States had attempted to present itself as an honwsr intermediary capable of engaging both sides. Trump’s posture shattered that illusion. In conflicts as complex and deeply rooted as Israel–Palestine, perception matters. Once a mediator is partisan, trust evaporates, and with it any realistic chance of negotiation.
The Nobel Peace Prize has historically rewarded efforts that seek to reduce conflict through inclusion, compromise, dialogue, and respect for international norms. From South Africa’s negotiated end to apartheid to Northern Ireland’s Good Friday Agreement, the committee has shown a preference for peace processes that acknowledge grievances on all sides and attempt, however haltingly, to address them. Trump’s record pointed in the opposite direction. By sidelining the Palestinians and treating their core grievances, among them, statehood, borders, refugees, security, and sovereignty, as inconveniences rather than central pillars of peace, he entrenched division rather than reconciliation.
Trump’s supporters often cite the Abraham Accords as proof of his peacebuilding credentials. Indeed, the normalisation of relations between Israel and several Arab states was diplomatically significant but these agreements conspicuously bypassed the Palestinian statehood. By encouraging Arab states to prioritise strategic, economic, and security interests over Palestinian self-determination, the accords effectively decoupled regional diplomacy from the realities on the ground in Gaza and the West Bank. For the Nobel Committee, peace that papers over the central conflict rather than resolving it, is not peace; it is, at best, a temporary alignment of interests and; at worst, a postponement of reckoning.
More damaging still was Trump’s promotion of Western appeasement policy as a diplomatic virtue. He actively encouraged European allies to mute criticism of Israeli military operations, illegal Israeli settlement activity, and allegations of human rights abuses. In doing so, he helped foster a global perception that international law was applied selectively. This double standard has long been a source of resentment in the Global South and among advocates of international justice. Unsurprisingly, it resonated poorly with a Nobel committee traditionally sensitive to humanitarian suffering, civilian protection, and the moral dimensions of power.
The human consequences of this approach were stark. In Gaza and the West Bank, cycles of violence intensified. Illegal settlements expanded, Palestinian displacement accelerated, civilian casualties mounted, and prospects for a negotiated settlement receded even further into the distance. Against this grim backdrop, celebrating Trump as a peacemaker would have appeared not merely premature but profoundly tone-deaf.
A genuine push for a two-state solution, however politically difficult and diplomatically fraught, might have altered this narrative. Nobel laureates are often those who attempt the improbable. Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin were honoured not because peace was easy, but because they took historic risks. Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat were recognised because they acknowledged each other’s legitimacy. Even Barack Obama’s controversial award was grounded in the promise of multilateral engagement and a recommitment to international cooperation. Trump, by contrast, dismissed the two-state framework as obsolete without presenting a credible, mutually acceptable alternative. His so-called peace plans were widely viewed as unilateral diktats rather than negotiated settlements, offering Palestinians autonomy without sovereignty and rights without power.
In the end, Trump’s failure to secure the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize can be read as an implicit verdict on appeasement policy masquerading as diplomacy. By choosing alignment over balance and expediency over equity, Trump may have secured short-term political applause and domestic loyalty, but he forfeited the moral authority and international legitimacy that the Nobel Prize demands. Peace, as history repeatedly shows, cannot be imposed or selectively defined.
Perhaps it is only Trump himself who still fails to grasp the fundamental truth that peace prizes, like peace itself, are rarely awarded to those who pick sides in enduring conflicts. They are reserved for those willing to confront uncomfortable realities, challenge allies when necessary, and place justice at the centre of diplomacy.
Magaji <magaji778@gmail.com > writes from Abuja
