Why is peace in the Middle East still elusive?

Open Editor’s Digest for free

Rula Khalaf, editor of the Financial Times, picks her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.

“This is a movement… I’m just one person. I definitely don’t deserve this.” This was the reaction of Maria Corina Machado, Venezuelan opposition leader, after receiving the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize.

If Donald Trump wins the award in 2026, he is unlikely to take a similar approach. The US President has already declared that “everyone says” he should receive the Nobel Prize. After claiming credit for ending two non-existent conflicts – one between them Albania and Azerbaijan And another in between Cambodia and Armenia Trump has truly played a critical role in stopping the brutal conflict in Gaza. Israeli crowds chanted thanks to the US President at a rally in Tel Aviv over the weekend.

It may be premature – and a bit reductive – to claim, as the president did, that “after three thousand years of bedlam and fighting, there is peace in the Middle East.” But lasting peace in Gaza, if achieved, is still something to be proud of.

There may be bigger prizes in the future, or so we hope. If Trump’s 20-point peace plan is put into practice — and implemented — the president and his envoys may actually resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This would constitute a tremendous achievement: something that has eluded successive US presidents since 1948 – despite the intense efforts of the likes of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.

But that is unlikely to happen, unfortunately. Despite the understandable euphoria in both Israel and Gaza over a halt to the fighting, clear issues over the future of the agreement are already beginning to emerge.

The next big question is whether Hamas will truly disarm and dismantle and Israel will withdraw – as the agreement calls for. The signs are not promising. Instead, Hamas is reasserting its control over Gaza and waging battles to disarm rival groups.

If Hamas is not disarmed, the next stages of the plan will look highly doubtful. Will a team of Palestinian technocrats really be able to take over the administration of Gaza if Hamas remains in place? The question answers itself.

This in turn calls into serious doubt the deployment of a multinational stabilization force, likely to be largely composed of forces from Arab and Islamic countries. These countries’ commitment to this mission – always questionable – will decline if Hamas remains a strong force in the Strip. Countries such as Egypt, Indonesia and the Gulf states will not participate in a counterinsurgency operation that might involve casualties or suppression of Hamas on behalf of Israel.

If Hamas remains in Gaza, any Israeli government will continue to view it as a dangerous enemy capable of striking Israel at any time. This makes it unlikely that the Israelis will complete the withdrawal from Gaza called for by the plan. At some point, the Netanyahu government or its successor may decide to resume the conflict.

But for now, it is in both sides’ interests to stop fighting. Netanyahu faces elections next year and wants to run as the leader who defeated Hamas, ended the war and released the hostages. Hamas itself will need time to reorganize its ranks and reassert its control over the ruins of Gaza.

So the most likely possibility is that when the Nobel Committee begins its deliberations next year, the results of the US peace plan will remain – at best – unclear and fragile.

Trump’s request for a peace prize must also be conditional on some important footnotes and appendices.

First, it must be pointed out that the American president made the problem worse before he made it better. His “Gaza Riviera” plan – unveiled in February 2025 – was announced in the middle of another ceasefire and may have helped restart the war. Not only was the Riviera Plan largely unrealistic and treated the tragic conflict as a business opportunity for American real estate developers. Its impact was even worse because it validated one of the darkest designs of the Israeli far right – the mass displacement of Palestinians. It may not be a coincidence that the following month Israel decided to return to war. This decision led to another seven months of brutal conflict.

Trump’s new plan is more realistic and more respectful of Palestinian rights. But thanks in part to the Europeans, Gulf leaders and experienced Americans, still in the US system, who gradually convinced Trump and his envoy Steve Witkoff of the need to return to some traditional parameters of the peace process – including an eventual two-state solution.

Getting to the current stage would also require an arrogant mistake on Netanyahu’s part: bombing Qatar in an attempt to kill exiled Hamas political leaders living in Doha. It seems that the attack on Qatar has finally broken Trump’s patience. At that point, he played a decisive role — moving with a strength and determination that Joe Biden has never shown.

Trump arrived in the Middle East on Monday to address the Israeli Knesset and then chair an international peace conference in Egypt. He will enjoy his moment in the sun.

But the Nobel Prize? We’ll have to see about that.

[email protected]