When it comes to Palestine, Trump could be the 'lesser of two evils'

According to prevailing wisdom, United States Vice President Kamala Harris would offer a more balanced approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than former President Donald Trump. She has demonstrated strong support for Israel so far, but has also emphasised the need for a two-state solution.

Unlike Trump, who often skips this aspect, Harris has asserted, "We must chart a course for a two-state solution, and in that solution, there must be security for the Israeli people and Israel, and an equal measure for the Palestinians."

This stance has led some progressive Democrats and American Muslim voters to view Harris as "the lesser of two evils."

However, is this actually true? Could Trump in his second term actually offer a better alternative for Palestinians despite Harris's seemingly more balanced stance? A closer examination suggests that he could.

Comparing the parties

It is true that the Democratic Party includes a progressive base critical of Israel's brutal behaviour in Gaza. Meanwhile the Republican Party has a faction that opposes enduring American military interventions, even if they align with Israeli interests.

Progressive and neo-isolationist factions make pro-Israeli lobbyists wary of both bases, but a crucial distinction exists between them. And that's the fact that progressive voices within the Democratic Party remain relatively marginalised within the establishment.

Conversely, those who support a more restrained US foreign policy feature prominently within the Republican Party. Trump's unconventional, illiberal, and non-interventionist positions on Ukraine, Russia, and NATO are well known, and some believe he could further disrupt the transatlantic relationship in a second term.

Alongside questioning military aid to Ukraine, vice-presidential candidate JD Vance has also cautioned against escalating conflicts with Iran. From Israel's perspective, this isolationist approach raises concerns about its potential spillover effects on US-Israel relations.

In reference to Vance, former Anti-Defamation League national director Abraham Foxman said this month, "If they think they don't need to support Ukraine, who will they retract support from next?"

Although Palestinians may continue to struggle for support within the American political elite, they might find a theoretical opportunity with Republican leaders who oppose endless American wars, including those who favour Israel.

Moreover, a loss for Kamala Harris in the presidential election could strengthen the progressive base within the Democratic Party. If this scenario unfolds, a Trump victory might represent a double setback for Israel.

Trump's Muslim allies

While Donald Trump's international policies may not always align with Israel's interests, his scepticism toward the liberal international order resonates with many Muslim-majority states.

Unlike Kamala Harris, Trump's policies align well with many leaders, including Saudi Arabia's Mohammed bin Salman, and the United Arab Emirates' Mohamed bin Zayed.

These leaders favoured Trump's populist approach and his stance to end the United States' forever wars. In contrast, the Biden administration has been more interventionist and notably critical of these leaders, labelling Saudi Arabia a "pariah" state for example.

Trump also maintained a friendly relationship with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, even publicly sharing a supportive letter from Abbas after a failed assassination attempt on Trump. In response to Abbas's letter, Trump wrote: "Mahmoud - so nice - thank you - everything will be good. Best wishes."

This type of diplomacy is rare from the Democratic camp. While Trump's positions may not directly advance the Palestinian cause, his closer relationships with key Muslim allies could potentially offer less advantage for Israel.

The X factor

Trump's independence and transformative leadership also overshadows Kamala Harris in this context. Harris's reliance on party lines may limit her ability to pursue unconventional approaches to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, especially compared to Donald Trump, who operates with greater independence within the party.

Harris’s lack of assertive leadership and her tendency to follow existing policies further highlight her limitations in negotiating bold agreements abroad. In her speeches, she has voiced support for continuing many of President Joe Biden's measures, including those on Palestine, which risks maintaining the status quo rather than introducing transformative solutions.

Her "business as usual" approach may lead to "history as usual," potentially repeating the failures of previous administrations.

In contrast, Donald Trump has demonstrated a capacity for transformative leadership. His presidency was marked by unconventional methods, challenging existing policies and creating new opportunities. Trump initiated the process of ending the disastrous war in Afghanistan, for example. He made a deal with Taliban leaders and even invited them to Camp David.

Although his tenure included policies unfavourable to Palestinians, such as relocating the US embassy to Jerusalem and pushing the Abraham Accords, these actions were grounded in prevailing geopolitical realities.

Looking forward, given Israel's ongoing challenges - including difficulties in decisively defeating Hamas and deterring Iran-affiliated groups - Trump's views are more likely to adapt to these evolving circumstances.

His realist instinct suggests he might offer a more pragmatic strategy to the shifting dynamics, potentially opening new avenues for addressing complex issues in the Middle East. Given his mindset, he is certainly less likely than Kamala Harris to engage in protracted conflicts on Israel's behalf in the region.

Relationship with Bibi

The relationship between the two presidential candidates and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is another interesting factor. Kamala Harris may have a strained relationship with Netanyahu, as indicated by her decision to skip his address to Congress on July 24 - though they did meet privately that week.

In contrast, Trump's relationship with Netanyahu is even more problematic. He has never forgiven Netanyahu for his swift public acknowledgment of Biden's 2020 presidential victory, which Trump viewed as an act of disloyalty, prompting the former president to openly disparage the PM with an "F*** him."

Unlike Harris, Trump has been openly critical and even cynical about Netanyahu. He alleged that the Israeli PM was caught off guard by the Hamas-led attacks and complimented Hezbollah as "very smart," stating, "(Netanyahu) has been hurt very badly… He was not prepared, and Israel was not prepared."

Trump also expressed scepticism in Netanyahu's support for some US military actions in the Middle East, claiming that Netanyahu did not back the 2020 assassination of Iran's Qasem Soleimani.

In US statecraft, unconventional moves have a historical precedent. In 1954, US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, a staunch opponent of communist China, faced a dilemma when the British urged him to include Chinese Communists at the Geneva Conference on Indo-China.

Similarly, in 1977, President Jimmy Carter grappled with whether to involve the Soviet Union in negotiations in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Despite their public stances, Dulles chose to engage with his adversaries, while Carter opted to exclude them.

This historical irony mirrors the current situation with Donald Trump, who is often viewed as a less favourable choice for Palestinians, and Kamala Harris, who is seen as more balanced.

However, their actual approaches may defy these conventional perceptions. Much like Dulles and Carter, Trump and Harris could make decisions that challenge our expectations.