KARACHI:
A recurring theme is pretty evident during the American presidential election. While candidates may have different personas and party affiliations, the stark reality is that their positions on critical issues often align in substance if not in style. A prime example is their stance on Gaza and the broader Middle East conflict. Whether it’s Donald Trump’s hardline support for Israeli actions or Kamala Harris’s calls for a “balanced” approach, the end result is an unwavering US commitment to policies that overlook Palestinian autonomy and reinforce a long-standing status quo.
In essence, what we are witnessing is a bipartisan consensus on foreign policy matters that transcends administrations. Both Republican and Democratic leaders frame their support for Israel as a cornerstone of American interests, offering little in terms of genuine discourse on the humanitarian crisis unfolding in Gaza. For voters hoping to see an administration that will advocate for Palestinian rights or offer a nuanced approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, these choices ring hollow. The rhetoric might differ — one appeals to a more conservative base, while the other seeks to placate liberals — but the policy outcomes remain largely indistinguishable.
The US electoral system, hailed as a model of democracy, appears increasingly to present only an illusion of choice. This selective political alignment, especially on foreign policy, shows that meaningful alternatives are rarely offered. Without new perspectives in leadership, it is difficult to see how such entrenched policies will ever shift.
Shehroz Alvi
Karachi
