By Beril Canakci
ISTANBUL (AA) — As one of the US’ closest allies and the most powerful lobby in the country, Israel has been a considerable force in Tuesday’s upcoming elections.
American-made bombs have rained down on Gaza and now Lebanon during Israel’s attacks over the past year. Today, millions desperately await a cease-fire in Gaza and de-escalation in the region.
Although Egypt, with US support, has proposed a two-day cease-fire in Gaza in exchange for the release of four Israeli hostages, Tel Aviv is reportedly holding off on any decision until the outcome of the American elections.
According to a former Israeli foreign minister, there would be little to distinguish between the candidates, Kamala Harris for the Democrats and the Republicans’ Donald Trump, in terms of their approach to Middle East policy.
Shlomo Ben-Ami told Anadolu that their differences would be more pronounced in domestic politics and in their attitude to “European security,” particularly in relation to the war in Ukraine.
- Israeli government favors Trump over Harris
While Trump and Harris do not share the same views on Palestine, Ben-Ami believes the current issue is not one of “opinions.”
“The question is one of how much political capital you are willing to invest in twisting the arms of an Israeli right-wing government,” he says.
He suggests that Netanyahu’s government prefers Trump over Harris, viewing Trump as a figure who would grant them a “free hand.”
Trump’s unwavering support for Israel aligns closely with the right wing and far right in Israeli politics, favoring policies that enhance Israeli sovereignty, while sidelining Palestinian statehood, including with the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
“The general sense is that Netanyahu, just like Putin in Ukraine, is waiting for Trump, assuming that Trump will give him a free hand and would not put pressure on him,” Ben-Ami said.
Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli ambassador and government adviser, suggests that Netanyahu has shifted Israel’s approach away from its longstanding bipartisan stance in Washington.
“The approach was to keep Israel away from the political turmoil in Washington … not to become a wedge issue,” Pinkas explains.
He expects that Netanyahu “is going to be the first one to call Trump to congratulate him because he does want him to win,” but warns that this support could “backfire” if Harris wins — or even if Trump, once in office, does not give Netanyahu the free rein he desires.
- Limits to US backing
Despite Trump’s track record of seemingly unconditional support for Israel’s government, Pinkas believes his patience may not be boundless, particularly if regional tensions boil over into all-out conflict likely to drag in US forces.
“He (Trump) is war-averse or risk-averse in terms of sending American troops. And right now, particularly in the Iran-Israeli dimension … there are contingencies in which the US is being dragged in there, and Trump will want to try and end that,” he maintained.
This could push Trump to give a greater role of other US allies in the region.
“He is very transactional … so I think he will be much more attuned or attentive to what the Saudis, the Emiratis and the Qataris tell him, more than what Israel tells him.”
Ben-Ami agrees, saying that Trump may support Netanyahu’s political plans, but not “to the extent that these would cause a war in which America would be involved.”
In the case of a Harris presidency, Netanyahu is likely to face more resistance in the White House than the current administration under Joe Biden.
According to Ben-Ami, Harris “is not a Zionist,” but while she would not be as willing “to absorb Netanyahu’s lack of discipline,” this is would have little bearing on policy issues.
To Pinkas, Harris also represents a “gradual” departure from Biden in terms of assertiveness towards Israel. “Harris has been more critical of Israel over the last year,” he says.
“If the war in the Middle East keeps on going on in three different theaters, in Gaza, in Lebanon and … a direct confrontation with Iran, she will have no choice but to deal with it, and trying to do something that the Biden administration has failed to do.”
- Middle East ‘no longer a primary US interest’
Despite their differing rhetoric on Israel-related issues, both US presidential candidates have made it clear that they would support Tel Aviv and guarantee its security.
But in the big picture, neither Trump nor Harris offers a comprehensive plan for resolving the long-term Israeli-Palestinian conflict, despite the US’ historical role as a mediator.
Pinkas, who served as adviser to ex-Israeli Premiers Ehud Barak and Shimon Peres, points out that this is because the Middle East is no longer considered a “primary US interest.”
Doubting any significant US action regardless of the outcome of the presidential race, he says, “I don’t see the US either under Kamala Harris or under Donald Trump doing anything.”
He added that while there may be plans to expand a series of joint normalization agreements, known as the Abraham Accords, between Israel, the UAE, and Bahrain, these ambitions may prove fleeting. “They’re going to see white doves flying,” but ultimately, “three months later, it’s all going to evaporate,” he said.
Ben-Ami, now the vice president of the Toledo International Center for Peace, criticized Biden for being “the first American president in the last 40 years that did not appoint a peace envoy to the Middle East.”
He argued that American administrations now see the two-state solution as a “lost cause, politically speaking.”
Ben-Ami expects that Harris may adopt “more human rights rhetoric,” while pressuring Israel not to expand settlements and to “leave open the option” for a two-state solution.
But, he is still skeptical, emphasizing that as long as “there is a right-wing government in Israel with a solid parliamentary majority,” Harris is unlikely to try and lay the groundwork for a two-state solution.