It is fair to say that the idea of US President Donald Trump being awarded this year’s Nobel Peace Prize is not universally supported. Nevertheless, backing for Mr Trump’s candidacy has previously come from some unlikely quarters. In 2018, former US president Jimmy Carter – a Nobel winner himself – spoke positively about Mr Trump’s engagement with North Korea. If Mr Trump was “successful in getting a peace treaty that’s acceptable to both sides with North Korea,” Mr Carter told Politico magazine at the time, “I think he certainly ought to be considered for the Nobel Peace Prize.”
Ending wars and earning Nobel prizes was one of the themes of Mr Trump’s speech at the UN General Assembly on Tuesday. Speaking in front of hundreds of leading political figures from around the world, Mr Trump said he had ended seven wars since returning to office in January.
“Everyone says that I should get the Nobel Peace Prize for each one of these achievements,” he added. “But for me, the real prize will be the sons and daughters who live to grow up with their mothers and fathers because millions of people are no longer being killed in endless and unglorious [sic] wars. What I care about is not winning prizes, it’s saving lives.”
If saving lives is a priority for the US leader, then there is another war that is very much within Mr Trump’s power to end – the campaign of violent collective punishment being waged on Gaza by Israel. Now entering its third year, unimaginable human suffering is still being inflicted indiscriminately on the Palestinian people, an entire national community that has been judged and deemed responsible for the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attacks.
Those attending the UN General Assembly this week will be aware that the tide of international opinion has almost entirely turned in favour of a ceasefire in Gaza, meaningful Palestinian statehood and a negotiated settlement to end Israel’s occupation of another people’s land. Israeli leaders are able to continue their pulverisation of Gaza and military occupation of the West Bank in large part due to American support.
The chances of ending the Palestinian-Israeli conflict would be much improved if Mr Trump and his administration seized the opportunity to halt another war, one that affects every country in the Middle East - and increasingly countries beyond. Sceptics could point to America’s long-term backing for Israel, but Washington has taken action before in cases where its own interests were not aligned with Israel’s.
In the 1950s, president Dwight D Eisenhower’s threats of economic and political consequences for Israel contributed to its decision to withdraw from Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula. After the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, Israel – which had again occupied the Sinai – eventually withdrew when it became clear that it risked alienating US president Gerald Ford and jeopardising American military support. A decision by Barack Obama in 2016 to allow the passing of a UN Security Council resolution condemning illegal settlements showed that US support for Israel was not unconditional. Often these measures were not enough but were important in stopping further violations at a moment in time.
Were Mr Trump to use his influence with Israel to guide its leadership out of the political, military and diplomatic dead-end in which it finds itself, he will have the support of dozens of Arab and Muslim-majority countries, many of whom are economic and military partners of the US. The Arab world has made it clear that Israel will enjoy security guarantees and a place in the Middle East if it ends its wars and occupation. That is a just compromise that, if successfully championed by Mr Trump, would be truly worthy of historic recognition.
