With still more than a year left before the 2024 US Presidential Elections, the playing field is heavily numbered with a wide variety of candidates. President Biden has announced his rerun in April this year, and his bid is currently joined by fifteen other candidates. To appeal to voters, the campaign statements focus on local issues, and foreign policy matters are largely limited to the topics of immigration and border control, with a few exceptions mentioning Sino-US relationships or the war in Ukraine. Which of the candidates will prove to be the best leader to address the Middle East Peace Process is up for debate.

At the time of writing, the two main contenders on the Republican side are former US President Donald Trump, and Ron DeSantis, the current governor of Florida. On the other side, we have the incumbent president Joe Biden who is expected to lead the Democrats in the oncoming election. However, recent polls have also put another Democratic candidate on the map, the environmental lawyer and author Robert F. Kennedy Jr. None of these four top contenders have been vocal about their ideas about the Middle East in their campaigns, but we will try and gather some insights from their careers and previous statements that may shed light on the matter.

Ron DeSantis

Ron DeSantis has been serving as the governor of Florida since 2019. It appears that he aims to outdo Donald Trump with his right-wing positions which include strong views on abortion, his support for the “Don’t Say Gay” and Stop-Woke act and his staunch anti-immigrant policies. He comes from a legal professional background and is a former military employee who was previously stationed at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

DeSantis is considered a foreign policy novice and is said to have a Jacksonian and anti-Wilsonian approach to the role of the US on a global sphere; meaning that his idea of national interest is limited to the protection of US territory and its people, and its commercial interests overseas. He has no desire to spread American values to other nations or to intervene militarily if it is not in the explicit interest of the US. He is critical of China, Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela, and he condemned Obama’s request for military intervention in Syria.

However, DeSantis has shown a perhaps surprising amount of interest and support for Israel and its government, having previously met with the president Isaac Herzog and prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In Florida, he has strongly supported education on the Holocaust, signed a deal to combat antisemitism in his state, and has pressed for US companies to lift sanctions on Israeli businesses. He has voiced his support for Israel’s actions, referring to the settlements by using their biblical names Judea and Samaria, terms generally utilised by right-wing Israelis. He has gone as far as demanding for the UN to be defunded until the Security Council revoked their resolution of condemning Israeli settlements as violations of international law in 2017, blaming Palestinians for the conflict, and even denying the historic existence of Palestine. At a press conference in Israel, he stated that he respected Israel’s right to make its own governing decisions, and that he did not consider it the role of the US to “butt in”.

Ron DeSantis would be likely to adopt a non-interference approach regarding the conflict and limit his foreign policy relations to economic interests aligning with the demands of the Israeli government. Given his rhetoric about the Palestinians, it is doubtful whether he would be willing to invest into humanitarian aid to the area. Any negotiations or peace talks that he may engage in will undoubtedly undermine Palestinian needs and rights in favour of the current Israel government.

Donald Trump

The former US president, despite having been impeached twice and who is continuously facing criminal charges and federal indictments, is currently seen to be the main candidate to rival Joe Biden. His campaign positions also focus on national issues, with little to no reference to his foreign policy goals.

Trump’s impact on the Middle East is hard to predict. During his term as president, he too treated Israel with considerable favouritism compared to other countries in the area, promoting the Israeli state and downplaying Palestinian suffering; his most memorable actions were his decision to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, his recognition of Israeli sovereignty in the Golan heights, backing the legality of Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, and making major cuts to Palestinian support funding. He also voiced his support of Benjamin Netanyahu’s vision for a one-state solution.

Yet, his term has also included attempts to find solutions to the Middle East conflict, some with more success than others; in 2017, he hosted Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas and proclaimed that he would make peace in the Middle East – in a statement that was described to resemble that of a businessman discussing a one-off real-estate deal. Another attempt was made with the Trump peace plan, the “ultimate deal” in his words, a deal that was led and finalised by Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. The deal has drawn a lot of criticism and rejection since its publication, as it mostly aligned itself with Israel’s demands with little to no consideration of the Palestinians. It has been called a “smokescreen” for annexation of Palestinian lands. More successful was his contribution in mediating the Abraham Accords, a series of policy normalisation agreements between Israel and the UAE, with the later additions of Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco.

As such, we have seen him take action and leadership in the area – although arguably of questionable quality and positive impact – and he has shown a willingness to address and improve the issue with the help of the Abraham Accords and his peace plan. However, his sense of diplomacy is limited due to his one-sided support for the current Israeli government, and little to no care for the Palestinians. Furthermore, precisely due to his previous engagement in the area, he may also decide to consider the case closed when he enters his second term, and simply move the Israel-Palestine issue to the back of the queue.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr

One candidate who has been gaining perhaps surprising support in the polls over the last weeks is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He is running – perhaps debatably – as a Democrat, and his success may be partly due to voters’ doubts about Biden’s rerun given his already advanced age for this role. Kennedy, the nephew of JFK and an environmental lawyer and author, has made his name by promoting controversial conspiracy theories, particularly establishing his anti-vaccine stance during the Covid-19 pandemic. His campaign includes demands for free speech and anti-censorships, overcoming national divisions, and address climate change. He has no real experience with foreign policy, and his campaign includes vague statements about reversing imperialistic policies and withdraw American troops from global conflict. His support stems mostly from billionaires and right-wing voters and broadcasters – adding to people’s confusion of why he is running as a Democrat – but he has also faced a lot of criticism for promoting anti-scientific misinformation, as well as making antisemitic and anti-Chinese remarks in a recent statement. Even his family members have publicly renounced his views.

Kennedy, given his lack of foreign policy experience, presents an unlikely leader to reasonably tackle the issue. His vague statements about continuing the JFK legacy and bringing the troops home do not promise any expertise or urgency to improve the situation. And despite his point about wanting to overcome divisions, his recent antisemitic statements suggest that he may be a bad candidate to promote global diplomacy overall.

Joe Biden

Joe Biden, despite having already entered the records as the oldest president in US history when he took office in 2021, is expected to run for a second term. His campaign statements are made up of national issues including healthcare and social security, protecting democracy, providing aid and support for Ukraine, and advancing corporate taxes for big businesses.

As analysed in a previous NCF article, the Middle East conflict was initially not a priority on Biden’s foreign policy agenda which became all the more clear with the break out of the war in Ukraine. His administration has taken a back-row seat approach, with no intention for active negotiation and dealmaking, and instead has been engaging in a kind of cautious gradualism, working with Egypt and other regional partners to stabilise the region, reduce tensions and violence, and focusing on humanitarian aid and reconstruction needs in Gaza. The aim is to create a more peaceful environment which in turn may increase the willingness to find solutions locally.

Biden has shown a more critical stance towards the Israeli government, appealing for Israelis and Palestinians to be treated as parties with equal rights and interests, and has rejected support for further annexation plans of Palestine. He has also returned to an increased funding for Palestinians. With the rising unrest in the region in recent weeks, Biden has been put under pressure to react, but his actions have been limited to choices like defunding Israeli science and tech projects in the occupied West Bank regions.

Like the other candidates we have considered, Biden seems to favour a more laid-back laissez-faire approach and seemingly has little interest in establishing a strong US agenda and leadership in the Middle East Peace Process. His approach could be criticised for its lack of strong leadership and tangible action. The argument that the Middle East conflict is not at a stage where negotiations are possible and that secondary influence via humanitarian aid is more helpful, while perhaps true in part, may well be an excuse for not prioritising the area. However, compared to the other three candidates, he seems to represent the best diplomatic option as he does not unconditionally support the current Israeli government and considers the settlement problem and the plight of the Palestinians with more understanding. While he may not end up being the US president remembered for ending the Israel-Palestine conflict, out of the four options currently available, he may be the one that will do the least damage. It may be a low bar, but when it comes to minimising aggression and further victims, it is ultimately preferable to brutish, unexperienced leadership or unconditional support to the current Israeli government.

End note

Finally, it is important to note the historic relationship between the US and Israel since its founding after the Second World War, when the US, under Truman’s government, was the first country to recognise Israel as a state. Since then, the US has continuously supported Israel financially and helped defend Israel against various forms of Arab aggressions or invasions. Pro-Israel groups also play a major role in the funding of the US government and its federal political candidates, likely influencing the stance of those who have received financial support by a pro-Israel group like AIPAC. Whoever becomes the 47^th President of the US, will likely continue to be governed by this pressure to support the current Israeli government. This is important to remember when considering the actions taken and negotiations initiated with the help of the US government. As such, as long as the pro-Israel lobby continues to play such a powerful role, and the current Israeli government persists in its stance regarding the Middle East Peace Process, the ability of the US president to tackle the issue as a diplomatic and neutral party may be impossible.