US President Donald Trump lost the battle for the Nobel Peace Prize. In another sense, however, he did not, winning his bet on a “peace deal” in Gaza, though he didn’t really win that either.
This is not “a play on words;” these are the facts.
As for the Nobel Prize, Trump may have taken his demands for it too far, convincing the committee that he felt its members were somehow obligated to hand it to him and submit to his pressure.
Nonetheless, if Trump’s ego took a hit, astute political observers have recognized that granting the prize to the Venezuelan right-wing politician María Corina Machado was, in fact, a precious gift. It came at a perfect time for the American president, who is very eager to topple the leftist regime of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela, even if it means using force.
The American right has a long history with Venezuela, the country with the world’s largest oil reserves. The relationship between the countries only effectively ended when the leftist officer Hugo Chavez came to power. After ruling from 1999 until his death in 2013, he was succeeded by Maduro, who remains in office to this day.
In fact, Trump has never hidden his intention to bring an end to the left’s rule in Venezuela. He is currently escalating militarily under the pretext of “combating drug cartels,” but these actions are not only about narcotics. Washington is offering generous financial support for Argentina to reinforce the position of its far-right president Javier Milei ahead of the general elections. Added to this is Trump’s growing support for populist right-wing leaders across Latin America, including Nayib Bukele in El Salvador.
Here, observers draw a parallel between the “scenario” of elevating Machado through the Nobel Peace Prize and the decision to award that same prize to the Polish trade union leader Lech Walesa in 1983. The head of the “Solidarity” union at the time, Walesa led the movement to end communist rule in Poland. It is worth remembering that the opposition movement in Poland, the largest Catholic country in Eastern Europe, had begun to gain momentum in 1978 with the election of the Polish Cardinal, Karol Wojtyla, Archbishop of Krakow, as the new Pope of the Vatican, making him the first non-Italian pontiff of the twentieth century.
From then on, Western circles watched the “decay” of the Soviets closely, working patiently and persistently to eventually exhaust it.
They kept the Soviet leadership busy on several fronts. The USSR’s Afghan quagmire (which followed the overthrow of King Mohammad Zahir Shah), propaganda wars (notably through Radio Free Europe, which could be accessed in the Eastern Bloc, and campaigns tied to human rights and the right of Jews to emigrate from the former Soviet Union, all pushed in this direction.
And here we recall, Mikhail Gorbachev was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1990, as the committee credited him with “accelerating” the shifts that led to the dissolution of the Soviet state, which officially stopped existing in 1991. The same prize had earlier been given to the Russian dissident Andrei Sakharov and the Jewish activist of Romanian origin Elie Wiesel.
Back to Trump and the Middle East...
If the ongoing Gaza war that began on October 7, 2023, is worth reflecting on, first for insights into the prospects of peace and second to understand the considerations of the Nobel Peace Prize committee, we are immediately faced with two clear truths:
The first truth is that many remain unconvinced that the “peace deal” has succeeded, though it has, at least temporarily, put an end to this horrific humanitarian tragedy. Indeed, observers from across the political spectrum see it as just another “deal” that fascinates the White House, with the president ignoring crucial details, dimensions, or repercussions. In fact, the details are the last thing on the minds of the two men whom the US president entrusted with negotiating the deal on his behalf, Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff.
Although Benjamin Netanyahu may have persuaded the two men that he is moving forward with the “deal,” the outrage of hardline settlers suggests otherwise. Moreover, the Israeli public does not appear ready for a profound "settlement" that could lead to a form of “coexistence” and ensure lasting peace in the region.
The second truth is that while it is being presented as an “agreement that could not have been achieved without pressure from the US president,” the deal is, in reality, a labyrinth of open-ended questions. Mutual trust is indispensable if decades of suspicion and resentment are to be overcome.
In other words, Trump’s drive for personal glory does not, in itself, amount to a solid guarantee for opening a new chapter in the region.
Upon examining Trump’s twenty points that make up his “deal,” I am reminded of the sardonic remark by former French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau. When he was presented with President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points at the end of World War I, Clemenceau complained: “Mr. Wilson bores me with his fourteen points. Why fourteen? God Almighty gave us only ten commandments!”
Accordingly, given the level of understanding that Kushner and Witkoff have of the region, and with figures such as Netanyahu and the “doyenne” of the settlers Daniela Weiss in the picture, it could prove difficult to implement those twenty points.
Thus, I would argue that the Arab negotiators and guarantors, as well as the Palestinian leaders themselves, must engage in honest, serious, deep, and transparent dialogue that moves beyond utopian illusions.
There is no doubt that Israel’s domestic tensions over the hostages have helped to “loosen the knots” of the talks, and Israel, despite its dominance over the global media narrative, has lost many levers over the past two years.
Nonetheless, this is a time of uncertainty, and the foreseeable future does not seem reassuring: nothing has changed at the core of the Palestinian–Israeli conflict, and, by extension, the Arab–Israeli conflict.
Yes... There has been no real progress toward solutions that could ensure a minimal level of coexistence and positive interaction.
