As the U.S. presidential election approaches its final month, domestic concerns such as inflation, healthcare, and immigration typically dominate voter concerns. However, the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran-backed Hamas has emerged as a significant topic that could influence the election’s outcome. With Donald Trump and Kamala Harris neck and neck in the polls, foreign policy—particularly in the Middle East—could sway key voter blocs, influence campaign strategies, and even redefine America’s role on the global stage.
The Rising Importance of Foreign Policy in the 2024 Election
Foreign policy often takes a backseat in U.S. elections unless there is a direct crisis or conflict involving American troops. Yet, the Israeli-Hamas war has captured the attention of voters due to its proximity to U.S. allies and its potential global ramifications. As Iran, Israel’s long-standing adversary, has become more involved in the conflict, U.S. voters are paying closer attention to how the candidates plan to navigate the complex situation.
Recent developments, such as Iran’s failed missile attack on Israel, have escalated tensions and raised questions about American involvement. Israel’s response to the missile attacks, as well as its broader military strategy in Gaza, could influence U.S. voter perceptions of the country’s foreign policy under a potential Trump or Harris administration.
Historically, the U.S. has been a staunch ally of Israel, providing military aid and political support. However, American voters are divided on the extent of U.S. involvement in the region. A 2024 poll by the Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs revealed that 60% of Americans support U.S. military aid to Israel, but only in specific circumstances, such as the release of hostages held by Hamas. A smaller but significant portion of the electorate—50%—believes that U.S. aid should continue until Hamas is dismantled.
Trump’s Hawkish Approach:
Donald Trump’s foreign policy has always been defined by a mixture of isolationism and assertiveness. Under his “America First” doctrine, Trump has generally avoided getting entangled in foreign conflicts unless they serve direct U.S. interests. However, when it comes to Israel, Trump has been unyielding in his support. This unwavering stance aligns with the Republican base, which remains strongly pro-Israel. According to recent polls, over 70% of Republican voters favor military aid to Israel, as well as support for Israel’s right to defend itself.
During his first term, Trump made a series of moves that bolstered his standing with pro-Israel voters. He recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, moved the U.S. embassy there, and withdrew the U.S. from the Iran nuclear deal, actions that earned him significant praise from Israeli leaders, particularly Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Trump’s running mate, Senator JD Vance, echoed this sentiment during the recent vice-presidential debate, stating that a Trump administration would allow Israel to take “whatever action is necessary” to defend itself against Iran and Hamas.
However, Trump’s foreign policy strategy goes beyond mere support for Israel. His administration’s “peace through strength” approach focuses on projecting American power in a way that deters adversaries. Trump has argued that the Middle East, and indeed the world, was more stable during his presidency, citing fewer conflicts and crises compared to the Biden-Harris administration, which has been criticized for its handling of both Ukraine and the Middle East.
Kamala Harris:
Kamala Harris, who stepped in as the Democratic nominee following Joe Biden’s decision not to seek a second term, faces a much more nuanced challenge. While the Democratic Party has traditionally supported Israel, there is growing dissent within its progressive wing, which has become increasingly sympathetic to Palestinian causes.
Harris’s position on the Israeli-Hamas conflict reflects the fine line she must walk between appeasing the progressive faction of her party and maintaining the support of more centrist and pro-Israel Democrats. As Vice President under Biden, Harris supported the administration’s aid package to Israel, but she has also expressed concern over the humanitarian impact of the conflict on Palestinian civilians. This balancing act became apparent when New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a leading voice among progressives, suggested that Harris might be more “receptive” to concerns about Israel’s actions in Gaza than Biden has been.
While Harris has not fully embraced the progressive wing’s criticisms of Israel, she has subtly indicated that a Harris administration might push for more conditions on U.S. aid to Israel. This approach aims to satisfy both pro-Israel voters, especially Jewish voters in swing states, and younger, more progressive voters who are critical of Israeli policies. According to polling by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Harris’s support among Arab Americans has dipped, trailing Trump by a significant margin in a voter group that historically leans Democratic. This trend underscores the challenge Harris faces in maintaining a broad coalition while addressing diverging views on U.S. involvement in the Middle East.
AIPAC and Pro-Israel Donors
The influence of special interest groups cannot be understated in an election where foreign policy has become a key issue. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), one of the most powerful lobbying organizations in Washington, has significantly increased its spending in the 2024 election cycle. AIPAC has contributed over $17 million to campaigns, with nearly $15 million going to Democratic candidates, even though the Republican Party is generally perceived as more favorable toward Israel.
AIPAC’s lobbying efforts have focused on securing continued U.S. military aid to Israel, which many see as critical to maintaining the country’s defense capabilities, especially as the conflict with Hamas intensifies. The financial backing from AIPAC and other pro-Israel donors is particularly crucial in swing states like Pennsylvania and Nevada, where Jewish voters make up a substantial percentage of the electorate. In a closely contested election, these donations and voter influences could prove decisive.
Additionally, private donors with vested interests in Israel, such as influential figures from Hollywood and New York City, have also played a significant role in shaping the candidates’ stances. Harris, in particular, has benefited from these donations, but this comes at a cost, as she must navigate the expectations of both progressive and centrist factions within her party.
How Swing States Could Determine the Election Outcome
In the U.S. electoral system, the focus is often on swing states, where margins are razor-thin, and voter turnout can make or break a candidate’s chances of winning the presidency. In the 2024 election, states like Pennsylvania, Nevada, and Florida are expected to be battlegrounds, with Jewish and Arab American voters potentially holding the key to victory.
Pennsylvania, with its significant Jewish population of over 300,000, is a critical state for both candidates. Harris, with her delicate balancing act on Israel, cannot afford to alienate this important voter bloc. Meanwhile, Trump has made direct appeals to pro-Israel voters, emphasizing his administration’s track record and criticizing the Democrats for what he describes as “weak” foreign policy decisions.
Nevada, another crucial swing state, also has a large Jewish population, as well as a growing Arab American community. While Jewish voters have traditionally supported Democratic candidates, Trump’s staunch support for Israel and his criticism of Iran could sway some voters in his favor, particularly those who prioritize foreign policy and national security issues.
Geopolitical Implications of a Trump or Harris Presidency
Beyond the domestic implications of the Israeli-Hamas conflict, the outcome of the 2024 U.S. election will have significant geopolitical consequences. If Trump is re-elected, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could find himself with a powerful ally in the White House once again. Trump’s administration would likely continue to offer unqualified support for Israeli military actions, especially against Iran and its proxies, such as Hamas and Hezbollah. This could embolden Israel to take more aggressive actions in the region, knowing that the U.S. would back its efforts.
On the other hand, a Harris presidency could introduce a more cautious and conditional approach to U.S.-Israel relations. While Harris has affirmed her support for Israel, a shift in U.S. policy toward a more balanced stance between Israel and Palestine could emerge, especially if progressive elements within the Democratic Party gain influence. This might result in increased diplomatic pressure on Israel to engage in peace talks or limit its military actions in Gaza.
Election approaches
As the 2024 U.S. presidential election approaches, the Israeli-Hamas conflict is shaping up to be a pivotal issue that could sway voters and influence campaign strategies. Trump’s unwavering support for Israel contrasts with Harris’s more measured approach, reflecting the broader divide between Republicans and Democrats on foreign policy.
With polling data showing strong support for Israel among key voter demographics, both campaigns are keenly aware of the impact this issue could have on the election’s outcome. Special interest groups, swing states, and geopolitical considerations all play a role in this complex and evolving narrative.
In the end, the U.S. election will not only determine the future of American leadership but also have profound implications for the Middle East and global politics.
References
- Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs (2024). Polling Data on U.S. Support for Israel.
- Gallup (2024). U.S. Voter Opinions on Israel and Palestine.
- Council on American-Islamic Relations (2024). Poll on Arab-American Support in the 2024 Election.
- American Israel Public Affairs Committee (2024). Campaign Contributions and Political Influence.
- Euronews (2024). Analysis of U.S. Election and Middle East Conflict Impact.