Neither Harris nor Trump would upend US Israel policy, but there are key differences
A Republican victory would mean less tension on humanitarian issues and more pressure on Iran, but the current veep would have an easier time brokering a Saudi deal
Lazar Berman is The Times of Israel's diplomatic reporter
Tens of millions of Americans voted Tuesday to determine whether the next US president will be Kamala Harris or Donald Trump.
The result of the contest will have far-reaching implications for the future of the United States. But it is also being closely watched around the world, as US policy reverberates far beyond its own borders.
Israel, and the broader Middle East, are no exception, certainly not at a time when US diplomats and military commanders are deeply involved in Israel’s conflicts in Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, and Iran.
Though the majority of US Jews — most of whom care deeply about Israel but vote on a range of domestic issues — are firmly behind the Democratic vice president, Israelis — primarily concerned with how US policy will affect Israeli security — overwhelmingly back Trump.
Israel and the war in Gaza regularly came up in the campaign, but was not a defining issue for either side. And there are similarities in many of the candidates’ goals in the region.
Both want the war in Gaza to end before they assume office in January, and are hoping that one of Biden’s final acts in public office will be to broker an end to Israel’s campaign against Hamas and the release of the hostages.
Neither candidate wants a nuclear Iran, and both would like to close a deal that normalizes relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia. They want to stabilize the region so US power and attention can be focused on the Asia-Pacific and the rivalry with China.
Harris
Before becoming vice president, Senator Kamala Harris did not pay particular attention to Israel. “All told, she wasn’t a senator much interested in foreign policy,” said Danielle Pletka, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington.
However, as vice president and then presidential candidate, Harris has expressed herself repeatedly on Israel and related issues. She regularly backs Israel’s right to self-defense and references the fate of Hamas hostages — and sexual crimes against Israeli women — while also being vocal about Palestinian suffering and the need to end the fighting in Gaza.
Assuming the current Benjamin Netanyahu-led government remains in power for the foreseeable future, relations with the Harris administration would likely largely mirror those with the Biden White House. Defense aid would continue, and defensive weapons systems would be supplied, while disagreements about settlements and movement toward a Palestinian state would place some stress on the relationship.
“What I would expect is a more direct expectation for a two-state solution, at least a lip service towards a two-state solution,” said Avishay Ben Sasson-Gordis of the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv. “If you think about her team and the people she’s appointing, these are people who have in the past been critical of both Palestinian but also Israeli reticence to move towards a political solution.”
Harris chose Ilan Goldenberg as her Jewish outreach director, a post that included advising the campaign on the relationship with Israel and Middle East issues. Goldenberg has publicly criticized Netanyahu, and was a leading figure in the Obama administration’s negotiating team for Israeli-Palestinian talks.
Under Biden, there have been threats to withhold security aid and weapons shipments, including in a recent letter by Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. He has also paused shipments of specific weapons.
Harris could take that policy further to pressure Netanyahu, argued Gabriel Noronha of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America. “Biden is setting her up to have the political and legal posture to stop arms sales – either in part or in whole – once she takes office.”
In general, however, Harris is likely to continue the posture she attempted to maintain throughout the campaign — crafting messages to both those supporting Israel and those hostile to the Jewish state and its war on Hamas. If successful this time, Harris would likely run for a second term, and would need to hold onto the alliance that ushered her into office.
On Gaza, Harris stresses the urgency of a ceasefire to protect civilians and free the hostages. She would likely pressure both Israel and Hamas to achieve a deal to achieve those goals.
“The Harris approach is rather similar to the Biden approach, but could be heavier handed in its pressure toward Israel, particularly on threatening a limitation of arms transfers if Israel chooses not to accept a deal agreed to by Hamas,” said Noronha.
With less pressure from her party to end the war in Lebanon, Harris would likely continue Biden’s policy of active diplomatic engagement to end fighting, while giving Israel leeway to carry out a campaign focused on Hezbollah.
Harris has an easier path than Trump to oversee a deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia. Republicans would support the deal, even if it would be a foreign policy win for a Democratic president. At the same time, she might seek to tack on additional concessions from Israel regarding the Palestinians that even the Saudis are not demanding.
And then there’s the issue that has worried leaders in Israel, the Middle East, and beyond for years — Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Deep disagreements over how to deal with the challenge severely strained Netanyahu’s relationship with the Obama administration. Biden as president sought to find a way back into the JCPOA nuclear deal that Trump walked away from, but was unsuccessful.
Harris would likely show the same preference for a negotiated deal with Iran.
Still, she may have learned the right lessons from Biden’s failure – that without the threat of military action, Tehran isn’t likely to make the requisite concessions.
“Harris will seek to avoid a military solution to Iran’s nuclear program for as long as possible,” said Noronha, “including seeking to curtail Israeli military action against the program – but will face immediate pressure from both political parties to deal with a firmer hand than her predecessor.”
Trump
As president, Trump ushered through a series of pro-Israel policies, including moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, recognizing Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights, and taking a tougher stance against Iran.
But there have been worrying signs since. “On balance, Trump’s record as president — and not his record since — is more reassuring than Harris’s,” said Pletka. “But that’s not saying much.”
In the intervening four years, Trump has trashed Netanyahu in vulgar terms, supped with antisemites Kanye West and Nick Fuentes, blasted Jews for voting Democrat, and reportedly told Netanyahu that the war in Gaza had better be over by the time he takes office.
On balance, Trump’s record as president — and not his record since — is more reassuring than Harris’s. But that’s not saying much.”
He also showed signs of a new influence by his isolationist supporters — including Tucker Carlson — with the selection of J.D. Vance as his vice presidential candidate.
That isolationist streak could become a major issue in 2026, when the 10-year security assistance Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by Obama expires.
Still, some points of friction that would likely exist with Harris would be unlikely to be issues with Trump.
“He’s not concerned about humanitarian issues or how Israel uses power in a measured way,” said Ben Sasson-Gordis. “He’s not a firm believer in international humanitarian law or committed to the laws of war.”
Though Trump is eager to see the war in Gaza officially ended, he hasn’t made similar demands about Lebanon.
“I don’t think a future Trump administration is terribly interested in pushing a diplomatic solution to Hezbollah,” said Noronha. “Most of his advisers are quite happy to see Israel continue to roll back Hezbollah’s military presence and capabilities in order to deprive Iran of its conventional military deterrent.”
Israelis might put hope in Trump’s ability to clinch more normalization agreements with Arab countries. After all, he midwifed the Abraham Accords, while the Biden Administration was unable to expand them at all.
But a defense treaty that Riyadh will demand would need over a dozen Democratic senators on board to get the necessary two-thirds.
“Democrats will be loath to give a victory to Netanyahu, Mohammad bin Salman, and Donald Trump – three figures most on the left disdain,” said Noronha.
On Iran, Trump would not be likely to initiate a direct attack on its nuclear facilities. The US interest, said Vance, “very much is in not going to war with Iran.”
“That leaves them with ratcheting sanctions, which I think one should expect operating against Iranian influence in the region,” said Ben Sasson-Gordis.
A limited use of US military force against Iranian proxies and even naval forces would also be conceivable.
As Americans — and Israelis — waited for results to come in, Israeli officials were putting forth a message of optimism no matter what happens.
“The foundations of the relationship will remain strong,” an official told The Times of Israel on Tuesday. “The relationship will continue to be intimate on so many levels, and the countries will remain the closest of allies.”
