As the conflict between Israel and Hamas nears its first anniversary, the possible influence of the U.S. presidential election can’t be overlooked. It was recorded that on October 7, 2023, a significant attack by Hamas killed 1,200 Israelis, took 250 hostages, and sparked an ongoing stand-off in Gaza. The repercussive response from Israel has led to over 41,000 fatalities, a figure put forward by Palestinian health authorities. The cease-fire discussions have hung in the balance leaving many to wonder if the U.S. election timetable is causing an undesired delay to the peace deal.
While there is speculation that the Israeli government may refrain from signing any diplomatic agreements prior to the U.S. election, supposedly aiming to sway the election results, the U.S. administration remains steadfast in its support of Israel. This support extends to their endorsement of Israel’s limited ground operation in Lebanon to counteract the militant force of Hezbollah. The fallout from the operation has unfortunately also included civilian casualties.
Souring the situation even more, Iran, who are allies with Hezbollah, launched nearly 200 missiles targeting Israel just this past Tuesday. This move could be seen as retaliation for the Biden administration’s efforts to broker a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, an effort that Trump criticized in times gone by. Trump had consistently aligned his policies with Israel’s interests and, at the same time, had expressed his wish for quick victories.
Ever since the conflict erupted, Kamala Harris seems to have focused her efforts on pushing for a ceasefire. Cleverly, Harris has been attempting to use the casualties in Gaza as leverage to negotiate a halt to the fighting. Yet, it is doubtful whether this will have a worthwhile impact or if it’s another fruitless endeavor.
According to Brian Katulis, a Senior Fellow at the Middle East Institute, the next U.S. president will indeed play a crucial, but not omnipotent, role in the ongoing war. He maintains that the unfolding events in the region are mainly determined by the interests and actions of the regional players. As such, America’s influence does not extend to complete control over what happens.
In fact, it’s the decisions taken after the war that might see the next president of the United States playing a more significant role. Trump’s opinions on this matter, however, have been pretty vague throughout his campaign. When questioned about his stance, he responded with an alarmingly non-committal remark: ‘It depends on when. There was a time when I thought two states could work. Now, I think two states is going to be very, very tough. I think it’s going to be much tougher to get.’
Based on his previous behavior and communication, the Trump administration might offer even less support for the Palestinians if he were to assume power again. Simultaneously, several polls seem to favor Trump among Israelis. Yet another survey complicates the picture by presenting a statistical tie between Trump and Harris when voters were asked who would handle the Israel-Hamas war better.
At the end of the day, it’s important to note not all that glimmers is gold. Harris’ repeated focus on using Gaza’s civilian casualties to push for a ceasefire, while seemingly noble, perhaps reveals a misguided approach. As history has shown, ending such complex conflicts without addressing the foundational issues only leads to short-term, superficial peace.
With Trump’s ambiguity on solutions for peace, his stance possibly mirrors a simplistic and outmoded view of the world, where quick fixes and easy victories reign supreme. It is essential to consider the evolving demographics, social changes, and complexities of the world today when dealing with monumental and age-old conflicts such as the Israel-Hamas war.
Yet despite these glaring shortcomings, it’s mildly baffling to see the favor Trump enjoys among Israelis. Perhaps they’ve been won over by his unyielding support for their cause. However, it’s debatable whether this unquestionable loyalty is fueling the right approach to a lasting peace solution.
The statistical tie seen in some polls between Trump and Harris leaves an unsettling uncertainty. It raises questions about the public’s understanding of the deep-seated implications of their choices, and their ability to cut through the veil of heavily slanted political messaging.
In conclusion, the rapidly approaching U.S. elections serve to remind us that, despite the distant geography of the conflict, America’s political landscape can cast a long shadow over the ongoing Israel-Hamas war. The next president, whoever they might be, has the potential to either fuel a continuation of the conflict or foster an environment for lasting peace. Unfortunately, neither candidate seems to offer foolproof, or particularly encouraging, strategies for achieving the latter.
And so, as we alm on the verge of the election, we are left wrestling with the possibility of continued conflict, wondering if robust peace strategies will emerge from either candidate, and contemplating whether the next U.S. president will shape the aftermath of the Israel-Hamas war in an effective and meaningful way.