When stopping bloodshed and saving lives goes unrecognized, the world’s most prestigious peace award risks losing its moral authority.
The Nobel Peace Prize is the world’s most visible symbol of recognition for actions that promote peace, protect human life, and uphold universal moral values. It is meant to inspire nations, leaders, and individuals to take meaningful action in the face of conflict. Yet the Nobel Committee’s decision not to award this year’s prize to US President Donald Trump – despite his role in brokering an end to the war in Gaza – raises serious questions about what the prize truly values.
Concrete achievements at stake
Ending the Israel-Hamas War, begun by Hamas with the October 7 massacre, has required extraordinary diplomatic coordination and the ability to engage multiple parties simultaneously, a skill notably demonstrated in Trump’s mediation efforts.
For two years, the entire world was united in calling for a stop to the war between Israelis and Palestinians, and when it finally happened, suddenly it no longer mattered at all.
The expected ceasefire between Israel and Hamas would significantly reduce violence, allow humanitarian aid, including food, medicine, and essential supplies, to reach Gaza, and secure the release of hostages, enabling displaced civilians to begin returning home.
All this anticipates tangible, life-saving progress, precisely the kind of direct impact that the Nobel Peace Prize should celebrate. However, the committee appears to have overlooked these achievements, favoring symbolic acts and idealistic intentions over concrete peacemaking results.
Symbolism over substance
By contrast, awarding the prize to Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado highlighted a morally admirable but largely aspirational cause. Machado’s selection aligns with none of the Prize’s core tenets: international activity, military disarmament, or formal peace treaties. The award was given for an internal national struggle for democracy and human rights.
Her advocacy for democracy is commendable, yet in practice, it has intensified government repression and social unrest, rather than advancing peace. This reflects a broader pattern: The Nobel increasingly prizes noble intentions over real-world results, elevating symbolic struggles above pragmatic efforts that directly protect human life.
Recent events illustrate this tension clearly. Consider humanitarian aid flotillas to Gaza that, despite generating international attention, delivered little actual help. It is akin to a “Nobel flotilla to Venezuela,” a symbolic event that draw headlines and applause but does little to change the harsh humanitarian reality on the ground.
The humanitarian consequences
The distinction between symbolic recognition and practical achievement is not merely theoretical—it has immediate human consequences. Every day of delay prolongs the suffering of hostages, displaced families, and vulnerable civilians. Recognizing actors who can reduce violence, save lives, and stabilize conflict zones is not a political endorsement; it is a moral imperative. Ignoring these efforts is a clear disregard for the most fundamental value of a Nobel Peace Prize – achieving peace.
It suggests that aspirational campaigns, however well-intentioned, the practical impact of which can be harmful, are considered worthier than actions that directly preserve human life. In a world where civilians pay the highest price for political conflicts, such a message carries significant ethical weight.
A missed moral opportunity
Acknowledging Trump’s role would not require endorsing his broader political agenda or personal style. Rather, it would affirm that ending wars, rescuing hostages, and alleviating suffering are values above ideology. Honoring this achievement should have risen above minor, ideological, or personal considerations, placing the immediate value of the pursuit of peace first. Ignoring such accomplishments in favor of symbolic gestures undermines the prize’s authority and risks sending the wrong message to those still living in war zones.
To maintain its moral stature, the Nobel Committee must reaffirm that ending violent conflicts and protecting human life are exactly the achievements the Peace Prize was created to honor. Anything less diminishes both the institution and the very idea of peace it seeks to celebrate. If the Nobel cannot recognize efforts that actively reduce bloodshed, what example does it set for future peacemakers?
The writer is a PhD candidate in the Department of Middle East Studies at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, and a member of the researchers forum of the Elyashar Center at the Ben-Zvi Institute.