Geostrategic Media Political Commentary, Analysis, Security, Defense
Dr. Shehab Al-Makahleh
The US presidential race is heating up, and the first debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, held on September 10, 2024, was a pivotal moment. The stakes are high, not only for America but for its allies, especially Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Harris, the Democratic candidate, represents a significant shift from Trump’s hardline approach, and the outcome of this election could reshape US-Israeli relations.
The Harris-Trump debate addressed critical issues ranging from the economy and immigration to climate change and foreign policy. But it wasn’t just about domestic concerns, Israel’s leadership was watching closely. Harris lured Trump into a confrontation over his criminal charges, while she displayed her prosecutorial skills, leaving Trump visibly rattled. As the debate unfolded, it became clear that Netanyahu may have reason to be concerned if Harris takes office.
Trump’s campaign, filled with isolationist rhetoric and erratic foreign policy, has given Israel a clear ally in the former president. Yet, Harris has been ambiguous on her foreign policy stance, particularly on issues like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Netanyahu must wonder: could a Harris victory herald a shift towards a less accommodating US stance on Israel?
Netanyahu’s fear stems primarily from Harris’s support for the two-state solution. During the debate, Harris made it clear that while she supports Israel, she also believes in ending the war in Gaza and rebuilding the territory. She stressed the need for a long-term resolution, something that Trump vehemently attacked, accusing Harris of “hating Israel” and predicting Israel’s collapse if she wins.
For Netanyahu, Harris’s stance could lead to increased pressure on Israel to negotiate with the Palestinians. Trump, on the other hand, has stood by Netanyahu’s side, often dismissing the two-state solution and aligning with Israel’s far-right. Harris’s push for diplomacy and her focus on a peaceful resolution could strain the close US-Israel relationship that has flourished under Trump.
While the economy dominated much of the debate, with Harris focusing on an “opportunity economy” and Trump leaning on tariffs and isolationism, the foreign policy discussion revealed stark differences. Harris’s commitment to strengthening US alliances, particularly through NATO, contrasts sharply with Trump’s “America First” approach, which has alienated key allies. Netanyahu may find Trump’s unpredictability favorable in the short term, but Harris’s pragmatic approach could bring long-term stability, though not necessarily in Israel’s favour.
On immigration, Trump doubled down on his baseless claims, including bizarre assertions that immigrants are “eating pets” in Ohio, which Harris and fact-checkers immediately debunked. Harris’s measured response to such wild accusations showcased her calm under pressure, something that may resonate with undecided voters.
Foreign policy remains a major battleground, and for Israel, Harris’s potential election could signal a more balanced US approach in the Middle East. Harris’s commitment to the two-state solution, coupled with her focus on ending conflicts like the Gaza war, presents a stark contrast to Trump’s bombastic support for Israel’s far-right agenda. Netanyahu, who has thrived under Trump’s unwavering support, might find himself navigating a more complex relationship with the US should Harris prevail.
During the debate, Trump also avoided taking a clear stance on the war between Russia and Ukraine, focusing instead on ending US involvement. Harris, in contrast, reaffirmed NATO’s importance and the need for continued US support for Ukraine. While this issue may not directly affect Israel, it speaks to the broader foreign policy landscape that Harris is likely to shape—a landscape that prioritizes alliances and diplomacy over Trump’s transactional approach.
Netanyahu, known for his ability to forge strong ties with US presidents, may find Harris a more challenging partner. Her emphasis on diplomacy, international cooperation, and a balanced approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could force Israel to re-evaluate its strategies in the region. Trump’s polarizing rhetoric and erratic policies may have provided short-term gains for Netanyahu, but Harris’s methodical approach could bring a longer-term, more measured US role in the Middle East.
The Israeli prime minister should be worried. A Harris presidency could mark the end of the carte blanche that Trump has provided Netanyahu’s government. If Harris wins, Netanyahu will likely face increased pressure to engage in peace negotiations with the Palestinians and make concessions that have been off the table under Trump’s administration.
As polls following the debate showed a slight uptick in Harris’s favour, Netanyahu and other foreign leaders are surely recalibrating their strategies. The debate may not have delivered a knockout blow for either candidate, but it laid bare the stark differences in their visions for America, and for its role in the world.
For Israel, a Harris presidency could represent a shift towards a more nuanced US foreign policy, one that doesn’t necessarily place Israel’s hardline policies above all else. Netanyahu might prefer the devil he knows in Trump, but the American electorate may be leaning towards a future that prioritises diplomacy and a balanced approach to the region.
In the coming weeks, as early voting begins and the campaign intensifies, the outcome of this election could reshape not only America but its relationship with one of its closest allies. Kamala Harris has shown she can go toe-to-toe with Trump, and Netanyahu must be wondering what her potential victory could mean for his political future.
