The US presidential debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump saw the discussion turn to the complex and volatile issue of the Gaza conflict and how to broker a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. The exchange highlighted contrasting views on how to handle this international crisis, with stark differences in their approaches to diplomacy and security concerns.
When asked about her strategy for navigating this difficult situation, Harris’s response focused on both acknowledging Israel’s right to defend itself and advocating for a comprehensive solution. She began by asserting Israel’s right to defend itself, stating that Hamas had “slaughtered” thousands of Israelis. “Now, Israel has a right to defend itself … and how it does so matters,” she emphasized. Harris also acknowledged the devastating impact on civilians in Gaza, highlighting the loss of innocent lives, including “children, mothers.”
Despite the tragic toll, Harris underscored the urgency of ending the conflict, asserting, “What we know is that this war must end … And the way it will end is we need a ceasefire deal, and we need the hostages out.” This statement highlighted her commitment to finding a peaceful resolution that would bring an end to the bloodshed and secure the release of any hostages.
Harris went on to emphasize the need for a two-state solution, which would ensure security for both Israelis and Palestinians. She explained, “We will continue to work around the clock on that. Work around the clock, also understanding that 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 commitment to a two-state solution, with equal security for both sides, represented a core element of her approach to the conflict.
Harris further reinforced her support for Israel’s security, specifically mentioning Iran and its proxies as external threats. “I will always give Israel the ability to defend itself, in particular, as it relates to Iran, and any threat that Iran and its proxies pose to Israel,” Harris stated. This clear commitment to Israel’s security resonated with her audience and signaled a continuity of US policy in the region.
In contrast, Trump took a different approach, claiming that the conflict wouldn’t have occurred under his presidency. “This would never have happened. I will get that settled and fast, and I’ll get the war with Ukraine and Russia ended,” the Republican presidential candidate stated. His comments were met with skepticism from some observers, who questioned the feasibility of his claims and whether his past actions demonstrated a commitment to peaceful resolution.
Harris countered Trump’s statements by accusing him of attempting to “divide and distract from the reality,” labeling his approach to international relations as “weak and wrong.” She further criticized Trump’s praise from strongman Viktor Orbán, stating, “It is absolutely well known that these dictators and autocrats are rooting for you to be president again because it’s so clear they can manipulate you with flattery and favours.” This direct critique of Trump’s ties to authoritarian leaders raised concerns about his potential foreign policy and raised questions about his commitment to democratic values.
The exchange between Harris and Trump on the Gaza conflict highlighted the complexities of the issue and the stark differences in their approaches to international relations. It served as a stark reminder of the weight of the presidency and the potential impact of different foreign policy perspectives on a volatile region.
