A key, though unwritten, criterion for the Nobel Peace Prize is the durability of a nominee’s achievements. While the Abraham Accords were a landmark event, the Norwegian Nobel Committee will be asking a tough question: are they built to last? Lingering doubts about their long-term sustainability are a major reason Donald Trump is considered an unlikely laureate.
The 2020 agreements, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states, were a significant and rapid diplomatic success. They were achieved in a single year, a stunning pace for Middle East diplomacy. This speed and decisiveness form the basis of Trump’s nomination and his claim to be a master peacemaker.
However, historian Theo Zenou points to a critical distinction for the committee: the difference between a short-term halt in fighting and a long-term resolution of root causes. The Nobel Prize is interested in the latter. Experts question whether the Accords, which were largely based on a temporary alignment of strategic interests against Iran, have the resilience to withstand future political shocks in the region.
Critics also point out that the Accords did not address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which remains the central and most volatile issue in the Middle East. A peace process that bypasses the core conflict is seen by many as inherently unstable. The committee will likely view any achievement that ignores this fundamental problem as incomplete and, therefore, not yet proven to be durable.
The Nobel Committee often waits for years, even decades, to see how a peace process unfolds before awarding its prize. Given that the Abraham Accords are still relatively new and that the political landscape of the Middle East is constantly shifting, the committee is expected to adopt a “wait and see” approach. For Trump’s 2025 chances, this focus on durability is a formidable hurdle.
