The vice-president of the US, Kamala Harris. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
As the United States prepares for the 2024 election, voters face a familiar dilemma: choosing between a candidate who embodies outright harmful policies, and one who, while better on some domestic issues, continues to support problematic stances on foreign policy. This time, the candidates are Kamala Harris, the current vice-president, and Donald Trump, a convicted criminal with a history of scandal, inflammatory rhetoric and divisive actions.
The starkest difference between the two is on domestic issues — notably Harris’s commitment to restoring reproductive rights. But, when it comes to the war in Gaza, both candidates remain firmly on the wrong side of history.
Since 7 October 2023, when Hamas launched an attack on Israel, killing 1,200 Israelis and taking hostages, Gaza has been under constant bombardment from Israeli forces. In retaliation for the Hamas attack, Israel began a military campaign aimed at “weeding out” Hamas operatives. But this war has left more than 42,000 dead — most of them civilians, including children. Despite Israel’s recent killing of Hamas’s leader, Yahya Sinwar, the onslaught in Gaza has continued, with no clear end in sight. The human cost has been astronomical, yet the US has remained steadfast in its military support of Israel.
Harris has publicly supported Israel’s right to defend itself, a position that echoes decades of US foreign policy. Despite repeated calls for a ceasefire from the international community, Harris has continued to justify US weapons sales to Israel, perpetuating the cycle of violence. Her insistence on Israel’s “right to defend itself” has not wavered, even as the civilian death toll in Gaza mounts.
For many, Trump remains an unacceptable option for a second term as president. His criminal conviction, combined with his overtly authoritarian approach to governance, makes him a dangerous choice for the future of American democracy. Trump’s legacy in foreign policy is also deeply troubling. His administration recognised Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and relocated the US. embassy there, effectively abandoning the pretence of neutrality in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His policies further emboldened Israeli hardliners, making any hope for a two-state solution even more remote.
Under Trump, US foreign policy toward Gaza was characterised by one-sided support for Israel, with no regard for the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in Gaza. A return to Trump’s leadership would likely mean even more aggressive U.S. intervention in the Middle East, with devastating consequences for Palestinians.
While Harris presents a stark contrast to Trump on domestic issues — particularly her advocacy for abortion rights and her push for an “opportunity economy” that supports middle-class families — her foreign policy, especially on Gaza, offers little in the way of meaningful change.
Her presidential campaign platform is centred on building economic opportunity for all Americans, with policies that include cutting taxes for middle-class families, investing in affordable housing and lowering healthcare costs. She also champions civil rights and reproductive freedoms, aiming to restore the right to abortion in the US following the supreme court’s overturning of Roe v Wade. These are critical domestic issues, and Harris is clearly the better candidate when it comes to these issues.
But her stance on Gaza, like Trump’s, is rooted in the traditional US approach of unwavering support for Israel. Despite acknowledging the need for Gaza’s people to realise their right to dignity, security and self-determination, her support for ongoing military assistance to Israel has contributed to the very suffering she claims to want to end. This contradiction highlights the limitations of her candidacy, particularly for those who see human rights in Gaza as a defining issue in US foreign policy.
The situation in Gaza demands more than empty rhetoric. While Harris and President Joe Biden have both spoken of their desire to end the war, secure the release of hostages and bring about a ceasefire, their continued provision of arms to Israel tells a different story. The US remains complicit in the destruction of Gaza, as it has been for decades.
For voters concerned about Palestinian rights and the broader implications of US foreign policy, this election presents a deeply troubling choice. Trump is a known quantity — his return to power would signal a renewed push toward unilateralism, further empowering Israel at the expense of any real progress toward peace in Gaza. Harris, with her strong domestic agenda and focus on economic reform, offers a better future for the US middle class, women’s rights and civil liberties. But on the critical issue of Gaza, she remains aligned with a longstanding, deeply flawed US foreign policy that has done more harm than good.
Ultimately, a vote for Harris is a vote against the extremism and corruption of Trump, but it is not necessarily a vote for a more just or ethical foreign policy. For many voters, it will be a bitter pill to swallow — choosing the candidate who is less harmful, but still far from ideal.Sibahle Zuma is a human rights and development practitioner with a focus on civic freedoms, climate activism and youth participation in policy and decision-making.