Could Kamala Harris Change the Course of U.S.-Israel Relations in 2024?
.jfif)
As Kamala Harris contends for the U.S. presidency, her foreign policy stance in the Middle East could bring sweeping changes. Her approach to Israel contrasts sharply with Donald Trump’s, who favored policies that Israeli leaders openly appreciated, such as recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Harris, by comparison, has taken a humanitarian stance, evident in her calls for a ceasefire in Gaza, signaling a shift from Trump’s hardline tactics.
Harris's views have raised concerns among Israelis who feel her administration may pressure Israel on contentious issues. Trump, who unilaterally supported Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights, was lauded in Israel for recognizing their control. Residents in the Trump Heights settlement view Trump as a stalwart ally, fearing that Harris could adopt a more traditional approach, emphasizing diplomacy and humanitarian concerns.
The Palestinian perspective on the election highlights their struggle under U.S. policies. Many Palestinians view Harris as a slight improvement due to her expressed concern for Gaza civilians, though skepticism persists. Trump’s previous withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and confrontational stance toward Palestinian aspirations added to regional tensions, leaving Palestinians apprehensive about his potential return.
The Palestinian perspective on the election highlights their struggle under U.S. policies. Many Palestinians view Harris as a slight improvement due to her expressed concern for Gaza civilians, though skepticism persists. Trump’s previous withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and confrontational stance toward Palestinian aspirations added to regional tensions, leaving Palestinians apprehensive about his potential return.
A return of Trump to the White House might escalate tensions with Iran, as he recently urged Israel to act aggressively against Iran’s nuclear program. Harris, on the other hand, appears poised to return to diplomatic channels, aligning with the broader U.S. consensus on containment. Israel's former ambassador suggests that Harris would prioritize a bottom-up approach, fostering coalitions and regional alliances.
Trump's Abraham Accords, which brokered normalization between Israel and Arab countries, would likely continue under his administration, potentially expanding to include Saudi Arabia. Harris, too, has shown interest in regional stability but may adopt a different path, focusing on diplomacy rather than dramatic deals. Saudi Arabia might find Harris’s approach more agreeable, as it aligns with broader U.S. foreign policy.
For Israelis and Palestinians alike, the election could redefine U.S. involvement in the Middle East. Harris’s emphasis on humanitarian aid and diplomacy contrasts Trump’s more direct intervention, creating an unpredictable environment for future U.S.-Middle East relations.
Trump's Abraham Accords, which brokered normalization between Israel and Arab countries, would likely continue under his administration, potentially expanding to include Saudi Arabia. Harris, too, has shown interest in regional stability but may adopt a different path, focusing on diplomacy rather than dramatic deals. Saudi Arabia might find Harris’s approach more agreeable, as it aligns with broader U.S. foreign policy.
For Israelis and Palestinians alike, the election could redefine U.S. involvement in the Middle East. Harris’s emphasis on humanitarian aid and diplomacy contrasts Trump’s more direct intervention, creating an unpredictable environment for future U.S.-Middle East relations.
Comments
Post a Comment