Maroc - EURASIAREVIEW.COM - A la une - 13/Sep 23:08

The Harris-Trump Debate: Divergent Views On The Israel-Hamas Conflict – OpEd

The first debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump was a pivotal moment in the 2024 presidential race, offering voters a clear contrast in foreign policy perspectives, particularly regarding the Israel-Hamas conflict. As tensions in the region continue to escalate, the candidates' differing approaches not only reflect their individual philosophies but also raise questions about the future direction of U.S. foreign policy. Harris and Trump articulated fundamentally different positions regarding the Israel-Hamas conflict. Harris reaffirmed her commitment to Israel's right to defend itself while emphasizing the urgent need for a balanced approach that considers the humanitarian crisis facing Palestinians. She stated, "What we know is that this war must end. It must end immediately, and the way it will end is we need a ceasefire deal and we need the hostages out." This reflects her advocacy for a two-state solution, which she believes is essential for lasting peace and security for both Israelis and Palestinians. In sharp contrast, Trump adopted a more aggressive stance, declaring that if Harris were elected president, "Israel will not exist within two years from now." He accused her of harboring deep-seated animosity towards Israel, claiming, "She hates Israel," and criticized her for allegedly missing an important address by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Congress, suggesting she was at a "sorority party" instead. Trump's rhetoric focused on Israel's security without adequately addressing the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, a stance that has drawn criticism from various quarters. Specific Policies Proposed by Harris Harris proposed several specific policies aimed at addressing the Israel-Hamas conflict. She emphasized the need for a two-state solution, which would provide security for both Israelis and Palestinians. Harris expressed her intention to work "around the clock" to broker a ceasefire and facilitate the release of hostages held by Hamas. Additionally, she highlighted the importance of rebuilding Gaza and ensuring the dignity and self-determination of the Palestinian people. Her approach indicates a willingness to engage diplomatically with both sides, aiming to balance military support for Israel with humanitarian considerations for Palestinians. This delicate stance seeks to address the complexities of the conflict while maintaining U.S. support for Israel, a critical ally in the region. Trump's Stance Compared to Previous Policies Trump's stance on the Israel-Hamas conflict largely mirrors his previous administration's policies, characterized by strong support for Israel and a hardline approach toward Iran. During the debate, he claimed that if he were still in the White House, the Israel-Hamas war would have "never started." His assertion that under Harris, Israel would cease to exist reflects a return to his previous aggressive rhetoric. His administration was marked by the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab nations while sidelining the Palestinian issue. Trump's current rhetoric suggests a continuation of this approach, focusing on strengthening ties with Israel while neglecting the need for a comprehensive solution that involves addressing Palestinian rights and grievances. Reactions in Israel to the Candidates' Statements Reactions in Israel to the candidates' statements were mixed. Analysts noted that Harris's call for an immediate ceasefire and a two-state solution might resonate with some segments of the Israeli population that are critical of Prime Minister Netanyahu's hardline policies. Mairav Zonszein, a senior analyst for the International Crisis Group, remarked that Harris's comments could attract attention from those who previously supported Trump but are now disillusioned with Netanyahu's approach to ceasefire discussions. Conversely, Trump's assertion that Harris hates Israel and his predictions of Israel's demise under her leadership may appeal to more conservative voters who prioritize a strong stance against perceived threats to Israel. His rhetoric aligns with the sentiments of those who view U.S. support for Israel as paramount, regardless of the humanitarian implications. Influence of Views on Iran Both candidates' views on Iran significantly influenced their positions on the Israel-Hamas conflict. Harris reiterated her commitment to ensuring Israel's security against threats from Iran and its proxies, stating, "I will always give Israel the ability to defend itself, particularly as it relates to Iran." This reflects a broader U.S. strategy of countering Iranian influence in the region, which both candidates seem to support. Trump, on the other hand, criticized the Biden administration for being weak on Iran, claiming that his policies had previously crippled the Iranian economy. He argued that under Biden, Iran had become a formidable threat, thus exacerbating conflicts involving Hamas and other militant groups. His focus on Iran as a destabilizing force aligns with his administration's previous strategies, which sought to isolate Iran diplomatically and economically. Mention of Ceasefire Agreements Both candidates acknowledged the need for a ceasefire, albeit in different contexts. Harris explicitly called for an immediate ceasefire, emphasizing that it is essential to address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and secure the release of hostages. She framed this as part of a broader strategy to achieve a two-state solution. Trump, while acknowledging the conflict, did not provide specific details on how he would negotiate a ceasefire or engage with both Israel and Hamas. Instead, he focused on criticizing Harris's approach and reaffirming his belief in Israel's right to defend itself without outlining a clear path to peace. Reflection of Candidates' Stances on the Middle East The debate illuminated the candidates' broader stances on Middle Eastern policy. Harris's approach reflects a desire for a more diplomatic and humanitarian-focused U.S. role in the region, advocating for solutions that address both security and humanitarian concerns. Her commitment to a two-state solution and her acknowledgment of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza signal a potential shift in U.S. policy if she were to be elected. In contrast, Trump's rhetoric suggests a continuation of a more militaristic and unilateral approach, prioritizing Israel's security without adequately addressing the Palestinian plight. His focus on Iran as a primary threat indicates a willingness to confront adversaries aggressively, potentially perpetuating cycles of violence in the region. Key Moments from the Debate The debate featured several key moments that highlighted the candidates' contrasting styles and strategies. Harris opened with a power move, confidently walking across the stage to shake Trump's hand, setting a tone of assertiveness. She frequently interrupted Trump, challenging his claims and mocking his past statements, such as his unfounded assertion that immigrants were "eating pets." This tactic not only showcased her confidence but also aimed to distract Trump and keep him on the defensive. Trump, in turn, attempted to paint Harris as a radical leftist, accusing her of wanting to end fracking and take away guns. However, his attempts to label her as a continuation of Biden's policies often fell flat, as Harris adeptly countered his claims by emphasizing her own positions and experiences. The debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump highlighted significant differences in their views on the Israel-Hamas conflict and broader Middle Eastern policy. Harris's emphasis on diplomacy, humanitarian considerations, and a two-state solution contrasts sharply with Trump's aggressive stance and focus on military support for Israel. As the election approaches, these differing perspectives will shape not only the candidates' campaigns but also the future of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. The implications of their policies could have far-reaching effects on the ongoing conflict and the broader geopolitical landscape in the region, underscoring the importance of informed voter choices in shaping the future of international relations. In a polarized political climate, the candidates' performances in this debate may influence undecided voters, particularly those concerned about foreign policy.