Trump’s Pursuit of His Impossible Dream
Since the honor was first awarded in 1901, four United States presidents – Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Jimmy Carter, and Barack Obama – have been recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize. President Donald Trump does not hide his intent of becoming the fifth, and has, I’m sure, already reserved a spot on his mantle for the award. The historically volatile middle east – and, in particular, the seemingly never-ending conflict between Israel and the Palestinians – undoubtedly provides POTUS with the most promising opportunity to achieve that coveted recognition and be officially acknowledged as an international peacemaker.
The president’s recent trip to the middle was very clearly his opening gambit toward procuring a nomination, which is the first and critical step in the Nobel Prize process. Someone of note will therefore have to provide convincing arguments that Donald Trump, no great fan of civil rights and a renowned opponent to environmental protection, has 1) gone out of his way to reduce the number of “standing armies” that exist throughout the world, 2) regularly organized and participated in summits and conferences that focus on achieving peaceful resolutions to international hostilities, and 3) supported programs and policies that promote “fraternity” between nations. Those are the three parameters for the award as defined by Alred Nobel.
It should come as no surprise, therefore, that Mr. Trump will gradually shift from friend to facilitator as he first softly but then increasingly purposefully chips away at Israel’s stubborn resolve not to compromise its security and well-being. He has already broken the ice with Iran, which has not yet revoked its threat to destroy Israel, and has held private discussions with the two major players in the region, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, both of which will undoubtedly demand significant if not suicidal concessions from Israel before accepting any sort of effort toward normalization and stabilization.
In Mr. Trump’s world, obstacles are neither sidestepped nor hurdled over, they are pushed aside. And Israel is readily being viewed as an obstacle standing between the president and the Nobel he so desperately craves and needs as the foundation for his legacy.
At this point, however, it is important to create a line of demarcation between overt antisemitism and Israel’s position in the complex paradigm of the Middle East. From a policy perspective, the president is beginning to accept and adopt a position that the two are by no means entwined or interchangeable.
His zero-tolerance for antisemitism is, I believe, sincere, and the aggressive actions he has been implementing to lessen if not absolutely eradicate this corrosive venom from American society and institutions have been truly unprecedented. Both Jewish and non-Jewish voices, however, will argue, not unjustly, that he is threatening the sanctity of the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech by failing to recognize that it is entirely possible to oppose Israel’s policies and wartime actions and, in parallel, not harbor antisemitic sentiments and bigotry.
At the same, though, the president cannot help but acknowledge that Israel’s staunch refusal to accept a cease fire or a settlement of some sort as a way to end the war and free the remaining hostages is being seen as particularly troublesome and problematic. Whether he personally agrees with that position or not is irrelevant; bringing the hostilities to an end and securing a stable and mutually beneficial relationship between Israel and the Palestinians are what will get noticed and, hopefully, be evaluated as Nobel-deserving achievements.
The irony is that those who are aligned with the anti-Israel left – and would normally scoff if not totally ridicule the idea of Donald Trump being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize – are now thinking differently; his pursuit of the award, they’re saying to themselves, may be a golden opportunity to ensure US readiness to relieve what is being regarded as undue suffering in Gaza. Through the prism through which they watch the world, Trump must be encouraged to push through what they perceive to be the correct policies and orders even if it is for something less than a purely, er, noble reason.
The president is undoubtedly troubled by the hostage quagmire he finds himself uneasily able to escape from. Very early on he threatened Hamas with fire and brimstone if the hostages were not released, yet has delivered nary a drizzle. In addition, advisors are most certainly reminding him that most of the hostages thus far freed were released as a result of negotiations and agreements, not by military action. Nor can he ignore demands by most of the families of the remaining hostages for a negotiated resolution rather than enhanced military activity and bombardment. It won’t be long before Mr. Trump will, albeit reluctantly, adopt a revised position that butter and not guns should be used to free the hostages and bring the war to an end.
Israel is learning the hard way not to take anything about President Trump for granted. He is, if nothing else, self-serving, and will always place his needs before his concern for others. And if the world stands ready to accuse Israel of war crimes – including genocide – the president will most certainly not drown himself by going against the tide.
No novice politically, Trump is well aware that Israel and its prime minister are not on the best of terms with the Democratic party, and will not hesitate to take full advantage of this sorry situation. And since the president is, for all practical purposes, the heart and soul of the Republican party, he has little to lose in pushing Netanyahu in a Nobel-aspiring direction since he is very well aware that there is no one from whom our prime minister can seek protection.
Further complicating matters for the president is that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has, in the past, made very clear that normalization with Israel is contingent upon a Palestinian state, and there is no reason to think that this condition was not again brought up during the recent meetings between the two leaders. Granted, Trump endorsing the idea of a two-state solution would have been considered preposterous at one time, but with his legacy on the line, personal priorities and ambitions can easily convert what is ludicrous into something that is logical and reasonable.
Israel was on the verge of declaring the day on which Donald Trump defeated Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election a national holiday. Israel’s savior, the pundits were bellowing, has returned to the White House. Well, barely a hundred days into his second term as president has passed and the tune has soured a bit. Headlines, in both Hebrew and English, are wondering about Trump: Friend or Foe.
Israel can therefore ill afford to indefinitely rely on President Trump’s benevolence since it is already beginning to erode. Now, then, is the time for our government to sever the umbilical relationship we have with the president. Israel’s relationship with the United States will always be well-grounded, but the president’s quest for grandeur must not be understated or disregarded. He must, from this point on, be seen as an ally and not as a protector.
