Monday, 13 October 2025

Nose-holding might not always be entirely dishonourable

 

The deliberations of the committee awarding the Nobel Peace Prize are secret. It’s just as well; it’s easy enough to imagine how much hilarity Trump’s hyped-up claims to have solved several wars (some of which the ‘participants’ didn’t even know had happened) would have caused the members. It’s also easy to imagine the extent to which Trumpian anger would have boiled over had that hilarity become publicly known rather than merely widely assumed.

It's probably reasonable to assume that his blatant campaigning for the prize might just have rubbed a few people up the wrong way as well: it’s not the way things are usually done. It’s hard to believe that a man who renamed the Department of Defence as the Department of War; whose government demands a stronger warrior culture and the abandonment of any rules of engagement which might prevent US forces from unleashing fear and intimidation; who is determined to unleash maximum lethal force on the streets of his own country; and who has taken to random extra-judicial killings of people in boats in international waters might not have struggled a little to be seen as a ‘man of peace’.

He might, though, have just the tiniest bit of justification in his jealousy about how Obama got the award so early in his presidency. What exactly had Obama done at that point to justify the award other than having learned to string a sentence together and avoid being called George Bush? Neither of those two things are entirely inconsequential, but they’re not exactly epoch-making either. Brokering a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel is no mean feat, although since it appears to have happened only because Trump effectively ordered Netanyahu to stop the bombing there are questions about whether it could have been done earlier. His expectation that he could announce the ceasefire one day and pick up the prize the next was always a long way short of realistic.

If the ceasefire holds and turns into a lasting peace, then maybe next year or the year after he might actually deserve some sort of recognition even while continuing to attract condemnation for many of the other things he does. He doesn’t understand the connectedness and maybe we shouldn't even expect him to; for him, the self-styled great deal-maker, every deal should be judged in complete isolation. It’s part of his natural transactionalism. There may even be a sense in which holding out the possibility of the prize which he clearly covets so much might encourage him to stick with the Israel-Palestine peace process for longer than his usual gnat’s length attention span. The probability of that happening currently looks very low, but if a nod-and-a-wink now made such an outcome more likely, might not a bit of collective nose-holding be worthwhile?

5 comments:

Gav said...

Well, exactly. If the peace sticks, then his personality shouldn't get it the way. I mean, if the odious Mr Kissinger could get the prize, then why not Mr Trump even?

Anonymous said...

I have no idea why anyone would think that Trump deserves any credit in any of this. For many months he has at best turned a blind eye to Israel's crimes against humanity.. At worst, he has actively encouraged them. The fact is there wasn't much left for Israel to destroy in Gaza, that's why the 'war' has come an end. (In reality, there was no war anyway, because only one side was in a position to do any fighting). I'm glad that remaining Israeli hostages have been released - as well as the many hundreds of Palestinian hostages - sorry, I mean 'detainees' - but there is no peace in Israel-Palestine, nor is there likely to be. There's just a temporary lull in a seemingly never-ending cycle of violence fuelled by an ever deepening sense of grievance and hatred on both sides. Trump hasn't any real grasp of any of that. And couldn't care less.

John Dixon said...

Anon,

I don't think that I disagree with any of that. I don't see it as a question of giving the Orange One any credit for what he's done, and I don't really expect the ceasefire to turn into a lasting peace. It's more a question of recognising that Trump is probably the only person with the raw power to restrain Netanyahu, if he had the desire and attention span to do so. If such an outcome were to be incentivised, even at the cost of debasing the Nobel currency, is that such a terrible thing compared to the alternative? It probably wouldn't work, even then, but where is the better idea for ending the killing?

dafis said...

I think you are spot on, dead right in your assessment of the situation. At best Trump has brought about a temporary pause and were it to roll over and onto a more lasting and positive relationship I would grudgingly give him credit as no other major politician has scratched the surface on these issues, and there are many of them centred in that part of the world.

Spirit of BME said...

Well, Donald John`s circus came to town, but this deal which is a business deal more than purely political had his hallmarks on it , but negotiations were done by Egypt, Turkey ( both past colonisers of Palestine , (which does not bode well) and Qatar, who were the bankers of the Gaza government.
One problem is that the Arab states are autocrats and when you do business there the one common theme ,is that they get to hold on to power by the threat of an external force namely Isreal. Buying into this might prove difficult.
No detail is yet out how they are going to pull this peace effort off. If you take the last unpleasantness with Japan and Germany the only way we were able to kill off the death cult of the Emperor and National Socialism, was to write their new constitution and back it up with decades of controlled education and occupation.
So, good luck with that!!!