Americans have just a handful of days to decide who will reside at the White House. There is an issue that has never been more important to US citizens, yet it’s crucial on humanitarian grounds. The US is the arch supporter of Israel, and whoever is at the helm of the White House is Israel’s go-to powerhouse. The US president can make a significant difference by playing fair in the ongoing Palestine-Israel issue. And this difference can start with the US president being less hostile to Palestine. So the question is: Trump or Harris – who scores better on this front?

Looking at Trump’s Track Record

During his presidency, Trump’s approach to the Palestinian issue was characteristically unpredictable. While he made decidedly pro-Israel moves, such as relocating the US Embassy to Jerusalem and recognising Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, his administration also proposed the “Peace to Prosperity” plan, which, despite its flaws, included provisions for Palestinian statehood and a substantial $50 billion economic investment package.

Trump’s transactional approach to diplomacy occasionally yielded surprising results. In 2017, he briefly pressured Israel to curb settlement expansion, demonstrating that his position wasn’t entirely one-sided. His administration, while reducing aid, maintained some humanitarian assistance to Palestinians.

Harris’s Diplomatic Stance

Vice President Harris has largely followed the traditional Democratic Party playbook regarding Palestine. Her approach has been more measured and diplomatic, but arguably less willing to challenge established paradigms. She has consistently supported Israel’s right to self-defence while making routine calls for protecting Palestinian civilians.

Operating within the Biden administration, Harris has shown little deviation from conventional US policy towards Palestine. Her statements have been carefully calibrated to maintain the status quo rather than push for meaningful change.

Comparing Their Approaches

Several key factors deserve consideration:

1. Direct Engagement:

Trump’s administration maintained some level of direct dialogue with Palestinian leadership initially. In contrast, Harris’s involvement has been more limited and indirect.

2. Economic Initiatives:

Trump’s peace plan, despite its ultimate rejection, proposed substantial economic investment. Harris has focused on traditional aid channels without introducing new economic initiatives.

3. Settlement Policy:

Trump showed initial opposition to settlement expansion before reversing course. Harris has maintained consistent opposition but with limited practical impact.

4. Public Statements:

Trump’s unfiltered communication style occasionally included unexpected positive references to Palestinians. Harris’s carefully crafted statements rarely deviate from diplomatic norms.

The Verdict

Surprisingly, despite his administration’s overtly pro-Israel policies, Trump might edge out as marginally less hostile to Palestine in practical terms. His willingness to break with diplomatic conventions occasionally created unexpected opportunities for Palestinian interests, albeit unintentionally.

Harris’s more conventional approach, while diplomatically sound, has yet to demonstrate any significant departure from the status quo that has historically disadvantaged Palestinian interests.

Looking Forward

The choice between Trump and Harris regarding Palestine policy presents American voters with a complex decision. While Trump’s unconventional approach occasionally yielded unexpected benefits for Palestinian interests, his overall policy remained strongly pro-Israel. Harris’s more conventional diplomatic approach, though less controversial, has shown limited potential for meaningful change.

The irony remains that Trump’s disruptive approach to international relations sometimes created unexpected openings for Palestinian interests, while Harris’s more measured diplomatic stance has yet to demonstrate tangible benefits for Palestinian aspirations. Below is a revealing example of Trump’s relatively less hostile stance towards Palestine:

The Abraham Accords Leverage

While the Abraham Accords primarily normalised relations between Israel and several Arab states, there’s an interesting backstory that demonstrates Trump’s less hostile approach. In August 2020, as part of the negotiations, Trump’s administration actually pressured Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to halt the planned annexation of parts of the West Bank.

According to multiple reports, Trump’s team told Netanyahu bluntly, “You want normalization with the Arab states? Then no annexation.” This quid pro quo approach, while not explicitly pro-Palestinian, effectively prevented a major territorial grab that would have severely damaged Palestinian interests.

Moreover, during the same period, Trump reportedly told Netanyahu, “I’ve done a lot for you, but this annexation plan, it’s a step too far.” This instance shows how Trump’s transactional approach to diplomacy, although unorthodox, sometimes worked in Palestine’s favour.

In contrast, Harris’s response to similar situations has typically been limited to expressing “deep concern” without leveraging American influence to secure concrete concessions for Palestinian interests.

This example illustrates how Trump’s business-style negotiating tactics and willingness to pressure both sides occasionally resulted in practical benefits for Palestine, even if that wasn’t his primary intention.