The 2025 Nobel Peace Prize will be announced today and formally awarded on December 10 in Oslo, Norway. As the announcement nears, the world watches an extraordinary drama unfold — one that could redefine not only the geopolitics of the Middle East but also the very meaning of the Nobel Peace Prize itself.
In the past 48 hours, US President Donald Trump, personally leading his core Middle East team, including Jared Kushner and Steven Witkoff, has mobilised intense diplomatic efforts to push through the first phase of his revised peace plan. Backed by the active mediation of Qatar, Egypt and Turkiye — and supported quietly by Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and Indonesia — the Trump camp appears to have secured an initial agreement between Hamas and Israel.
Turkiye's leader Erdogan actually arrived in Washington to meet Trump. The Iranians too were one step removed, engaged in discussions. All leading up to phase one peace agreement signed by Hamas and Israel.
This revised phase one agreement reportedly covers several crucial points: an immediate ceasefire and an end to Israel’s military assault and blockade of Gaza; a withdrawal of Israeli forces to a mutually agreed line within Gaza, though not a complete pullout; the opening of corridors for humanitarian aid; and the initiation of a large-scale prisoner exchange involving both Israeli and Palestinian detainees.
Most significantly, it includes the formal acknowledgement of Hamas as a representative and negotiating authority for the Palestinians of Gaza. Trump's earlier proposal demanded Hamas's disarmament and virtual surrender.
That was more of an appeasement document for the Israelis and a surrender document for the Palestinians, the very people who held off their own defeat through defiant resistance against the barbaric Israeli army.
What changes the logic of this moment, which has followed the last 48 hours of hectic diplomacy, is not only the substance of the agreement but the sequencing.
By moving disarmament and final-status politics out of Phase One and prioritising an enforceable ceasefire, monitored military pullback, humanitarian access and a prisoner exchange, the plan puts immediate civilian protection ahead of Netanyahu's security-related preconditions — the very security-related ploys that Israel since its very illegitimate inception has repeatedly used to brutalise every aspect of Palestinian existence.
This new approach also recognises the political reality that any accord affecting Gaza must engage those who actually hold ground there. Acknowledging Hamas as a negotiating authority for implementation, however controversial for many regional stakeholders, supposedly turns a "disruptor" into a responsible interlocutor at this phase.
However, in the last 48 hours following Trump's engagement with Netanyahu and later with several Muslim and Arab leaders, the plan was reworked. In his quest to secure an agreement before the Nobel announcement, Trump has pressed Netanyahu to accept Hamas as a negotiating party, leaving key issues such as disarmament and governance in grey zones, while indirectly acknowledging Hamas’s authority in Gaza.
So, the initially controversial document now actually offers hope. It does not have capitulation prescribed for the Palestinians; instead it is evolving into a potentially viable conflict management approach designed to stop the killing and create room for politics.
The contrast with earlier proposals is stark: where the previous template demanded capitulation up front and offered relief later, this one front-loads relief and defers the hardest questions to structured talks. This will starkly and credibly test the seriousness of all principals — Washington, Tel Aviv, Hamas and the Arab guarantors.
Equally notable is Iran’s muted reaction. Unlike its past opposition to US-brokered regional deals, Tehran has not condemned the emerging plan. Some regional sources even suggest cautious Iranian endorsement, seeing in it a possible pathway to relieve Palestinian suffering. All this, including Iran’s almost tacit approval, is unprecedented in recent Middle East diplomacy.
Interestingly, Trump's sudden diplomatic urgency is true to his person. He tries his utmost to get what he wants and his transactional nature does not hold him back on taking any route to his personal "victory". In this case, frame the last 48 hours within his desire to get the Nobel Peace Prize.
By all accounts, he has mentioned it repeatedly in private and public conversations. Hence, the unleashing of this hurricane diplomacy by Trump and his inner coterie at the White House came largely from his calculus that only a historic peace deal on Palestine could perhaps guarantee him the coveted peace prize.
Significantly, this moment in global politics is loaded with irony. In his desire to get the Nobel prize will Trump undo a historical blunder that the US committed decades ago, one that unloaded on the Palestinians protracted misery, massacre, injustice, homelessness and indignation?
Also for the Nobel Peace Prize this moment provides both a challenge and a remarkable opportunity.
In this exceptional moment, the Nobel Committee could create precedent by awarding a "staggered" or conditional Nobel Peace Prize. Such an award could be contingent upon the full implementation of the Gaza peace plan: sustained ceasefire, Israeli withdrawal, establishment of a Palestinian governance structure and the release of long-held political prisoners such as Marwan Barghouti.
A phased Nobel Prize would not only keep Trump personally invested in completing the peace process but also demonstrate the Nobel Committee's moral courage and its ingenuity too. It would show the world that it means business in its commitment to world peace; that it’s not subservient to procedures but to the substance of its mission: that it seeks results over rhetoric and grandstanding.
That because it is committed to the substance of peacemaking, it is using its own agency in impacting on peace and thereby in introducing the staggered award method it is encouraging and impacting on Trump to go all the way in ensuring just peace in the Middle East.
For the Palestinians, this moment is of course neither surrender nor submission. Despite two years of devastating war and occupation, Hamas has not capitulated. Its continued resistance – however controversial – has ensured that Palestinians remain a negotiating force rather than a vanquished people.
If this revised plan indeed keeps Gaza’s governance under Palestinian control, provides oversight mechanisms without occupation and avoids the forced disarmament of Hamas, it could form the fragile basis for a broader Palestinian statehood process.
So far, so good. As the Nobel announcement approaches, the Trump team and key regional capitals have deployed extraordinary energy to secure an opening towards peace. Agreement has been reached on prisoner exchange, ceasefire and partial Israeli withdrawal — with Hamas now recognised as a legitimate negotiator.
With bated breath, Palestinians and much of the world hope this is the first step toward a genuine and just peace. But everything depends on one man: Donald Trump. Will he, driven by ambition or conviction, rein in Netanyahu, uphold his commitments and help restore Palestinian rights to land, life and sovereignty? Will history record one of politics' strangest redemption?
Disclaimer: The viewpoints expressed in this piece are the writer's own and don't necessarily reflect Geo.tv's editorial policy.
The writer is a senior journalist. She tweets at nasimzehra and can be reached at: nasimzehragmail.com