A fundamental principle for the Nobel Peace Prize Committee is a focus on resolving the “root causes” of conflict, not just managing its symptoms. According to experts, this is a critical test that Donald Trump’s signature achievement, the Abraham Accords, fails to pass, making his Nobel candidacy unpersuasive to the committee.
Trump’s approach to diplomacy is often praised by his supporters for being direct and results-oriented. The Abraham Accords are seen as the prime example: he bypassed the seemingly intractable Israeli-Palestinian conflict to forge new alliances based on more immediate shared interests, such as countering Iran. This produced a tangible result.
However, historian Theo Zenou highlights the exact problem with this approach from a Nobel perspective. “There’s a huge difference between getting fighting to stop in the short-term and resolving the root causes of the conflict,” Zenou stated. The Nobel Prize is awarded for the latter. The committee seeks to honor work that creates the conditions for a self-sustaining, generational peace.
Critics argue that by ignoring the Israeli-Palestinian issue, the Accords did not address the primary engine of instability in the region. They were a realignment of alliances around the conflict, not a resolution of it. This makes the peace they created potentially fragile and dependent on the shifting sands of regional politics.
The Nobel Committee is in the business of rewarding transformative peace, not just transactional diplomacy. They look for laureates who dig deep to address the historical, social, and political grievances that fuel violence. Because Trump’s diplomatic wins are seen as surface-level agreements that leave the core drivers of conflict untouched, they are unlikely to meet the Nobel’s high standard.