****

The decisions on when to engage in wars and how to support America's allies in their conflicts are among the most critical choices a president can make. In our series, Promises and Policies, we delve into Kamala Harris' and Donald Trump's approaches to the ongoing wars in the Middle East and Ukraine, and the actions they vow to take if elected president. As Nick Schifrin reports, these two candidates offer contrasting solutions and rhetoric on these significant issues.

Starting with the Middle East, both Harris and Trump have clearly articulated their positions on the conflict in Gaza. In response to the October 7 terrorist attacks, they both support Israel's right to defend itself and pledge consistent military aid. However, their strategies diverge when addressing the nature of the war in Gaza.

Kamala Harris, after meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in July, emphasized the pressing humanitarian concerns in Gaza, calling for attention to the images of dead children and displaced, desperate civilians. She insists on not becoming desensitized to the suffering and highlights her commitment to a cease-fire that would ultimately release all hostages and conclude the war.

Conversely, Donald Trump, during discussions with Israel’s Hayom in March and later with Netanyahu in August, criticized the war tactics in Gaza, expressing that while he condemns Hamas, he believes Israel should achieve a quick and decisive victory. Despite not outlining a specific strategy for dismantling Hamas, he consistently advocates for ending the conflict swiftly to bring about peace.

The differences in their approaches are also evident in their rhetoric. Trump has used the Biden-Harris administration’s call for a cease-fire to position himself as a stronger supporter of Israel, criticizing Harris for demanding an immediate cease-fire. Meanwhile, Harris underscores her lifelong support for Israel and highlights the administration’s unprecedented military aid, including assistance in shooting down Iranian missiles.

Shifting focus to Russia’s war in Ukraine, Harris and Trump again present differing views on U.S. support. Harris, echoing much of Washington's foreign policy establishment, firmly backs Ukraine in its struggle. In contrast, Trump has proposed a swift end to the war through negotiations without detailing his plan. During an ABC debate, Trump stated that the U.S. should prioritize ending the war to save lives, suggesting negotiations based on current front lines and delaying Ukraine's NATO membership.

Harris has dismissed such proposals, emphasizing in her statements before meeting President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in September that forcing Ukraine to cede its territory or accept neutrality would be akin to surrender, promoting Putin’s agenda rather than ensuring peace.

Furthermore, their stances on NATO and Europe reveal a stark contrast. While Trump has controversially questioned the unwavering commitment of the U.S. to defend European allies, Harris has reaffirmed the importance of NATO as the world's greatest military alliance. European officials express concern over Trump’s potential second term, while Israeli officials question whether Harris would maintain the robust support for Israel.

In summary, the world is closely watching the U.S. election, recognizing the significant impact it will have on international conflicts and alliances.