### Trump vs. Harris: Impact on Global Conflicts Hinges on U.S. Election Outcome

As the United States approaches its November 5 election, the world anxiously watches to understand how the foreign policies of either Republican candidate Donald Trump or Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris might influence global conflicts. The international community recognizes that whoever occupies the White House can significantly affect the outcomes of wars in Gaza, Lebanon, Ukraine, and Sudan.

Both Harris and Trump have shown clear, unwavering support for Israel, giving little hope to Palestinians and the broader Arab world for an end to the Gaza conflict regardless of who wins. Trump's strong condemnation of Hamas following the October 7, 2023, attack that killed 1,139 Israelis and led to the capture of 251 people underscores his stance. Although Trump criticized the extent of deaths in Gaza, he emphasized Israel's decisive actions to combat Hamas.

During his previous term, Trump's administration made moves that favored Israel, such as recognizing Jerusalem as its capital and brokering normalization deals under the Abraham Accords. However, his 2020 "Peace Plan," which advocated a two-state solution, was poorly received by Palestinians and ultimately fell apart.

Harris, while vocal about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and calling for a ceasefire, has yet to provide a rigorous plan to end the conflict. Like Biden, her approach still lacks a clear commitment to a two-state solution, drawing criticism from within the Arab American community that supported Biden in 2020. The recent remarks by former President Bill Clinton, perceived as justification for Israel's actions in Gaza, have further fueled discontent.

As for the ongoing Ukraine war, the stakes are high. Trump, who has previously shown favor towards Russia and its President Vladimir Putin, claims he could negotiate a swift peace deal, potentially involving significant territorial concessions on Ukraine's part. Trump's proposed solution, which would likely prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, has been criticized for potentially emboldening further Russian aggression.

Harris, on the other hand, has continually supported Kyiv, advocating for increased Western military assistance. Under Biden, the U.S. has already committed upwards of $64 billion to Ukraine. Harris warns that a Russian victory could have dire consequences for Europe, starting with Poland.

In Sudan, analysts predict Trump would deprioritize the conflict, citing his past focus on normalizing Sudan-Israel relations over establishing a civilian government. The 2019 transitional governance structure was heavily criticized for overly empowering the military, a decision whose fallout Biden's administration has shown limited attempts to rectify. Nonetheless, Biden-Harris' policies did introduce sanctions aimed at pressing military leaders towards peace.

As voters in the United States prepare to make their choice, the future of these conflicted regions—and potentially the broader international order—hangs in the balance. Whether Trump's more isolationist and unpredictable approach will prevail over Harris's advocacy for increased diplomatic and military support remains a critical question for analysts and global leaders alike.