The signing of the Abraham Accords was a moment of significant diplomatic fanfare, with a historic photo-op on the White House lawn. But the Nobel Peace Prize committee is known to look beyond such moments, seeking evidence of deep-rooted, sustainable peace. Experts argue that Donald Trump’s achievement, while visually impressive, may lack the substance required for a Nobel.
The 2020 agreements, which normalized relations for Israel with the UAE and Bahrain, were a clear policy success for the Trump administration. His supporters point to this as a tangible result, a deliverable in a world of endless, fruitless negotiations. This forms the core of his Nobel nomination.
However, the Nobel committee’s work is to distinguish between diplomatic breakthroughs and genuine peacebuilding. Peacebuilding involves addressing the underlying grievances, fostering reconciliation between peoples, and creating structures for lasting cooperation. Critics argue the Abraham Accords were primarily a top-down, strategic realignment of governments, not a grassroots movement for peace.
Historian Theo Zenou alluded to this when he differentiated between stopping fighting and “resolving the root causes of the conflict.” The committee is interested in the latter. They will ask tough questions: Did the Accords advance a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Have they led to broader cultural and social integration? Or are they a fragile alliance based on temporary shared interests?
The Nobel Prize is not an award for successful statecraft alone; it is an award for advancing the human condition through peace. Without clear evidence that his diplomatic fanfare has translated into a durable, people-centric peace, the committee is unlikely to be swayed. They have a long history of favoring the slow, patient work of reconciliation over the fleeting glory of a political photo-op.