Last week, President Donald Trump achieved a major breakthrough in the Middle East, a historic peace deal between Israel and Hamas. The deal, which includes the return of surviving hostages, is a monumental achievement after years of stalled negotiations and endless political rhetoric.
The first phase of the peace agreement has already made significant strides in the region, making way for a hopeful future. As news broke, many political analysts, even some staunch Trump critics, were forced to acknowledge the historic significance of the deal, which marked a turning point for peace in a region that has long been plagued by violence and instability.
Trump’s leadership in securing peace is a testament to decisive action in an era where diplomacy has often meant talking without tangible results.
In a post on his Truth Social platform, the President celebrated the progress, stating that all hostages would soon be released and that Israel would withdraw its troops as the first step toward “a strong, durable, and everlasting peace.”
The response to Trump's success has been mixed. While some have praised him for his efforts, others, particularly from the Democratic side, have struggled to acknowledge the gravity of his achievement.
Among the most notable reactions was that of former Vice President Kamala Harris, who, when asked about the peace deal, delivered a carefully worded response that avoided crediting Trump for his role in securing the agreement.
Harris’s response, filled with vague rhetoric and a reluctance to mention Trump by name, was a stark contrast to the praise he received from even the most ardent political adversaries.
Harris’s inability to recognize Trump's achievement was particularly telling in the context of her political aspirations. In an interview, she praised the people who had been part of the peace process, specifically mentioning Qatar and Egypt, but never once acknowledged Trump's contribution.
Her words were meandering and full of politically correct statements, but ultimately, they lacked substance. She expressed hope that the hostages would be released, Gaza would no longer face “brutality,” and that aid would be allowed in, but her tone and rhetoric came off as disjointed and lacking a clear understanding of the situation.
MSNBC’s Eugene Daniels attempted to help Harris with a softball question about whether the violence in Gaza could be considered genocide. Her response to the question raised eyebrows.
Instead of taking a firm stance or offering any meaningful insight, Harris veered into vague, emotive language about the children and innocent civilians who had died.
While the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is undeniable, Harris’s response lacked any clarity or tangible policy suggestions. Her words appeared to be more about playing to a far-left activist base than offering any concrete leadership on the issue.
Many observers quickly noted that Harris’s response only further highlighted the disaster America narrowly avoided by rejecting her presidential campaign. In a column for the Washington Times, Tim Murtaugh pointed out that if Kamala Harris had been president, the world would likely be a far more dangerous place.
Her failure to recognize and confront evil, he argued, would have left the world mired in conflict and instability. Harris's worldview, which seems to sympathize with the wrong side of conflicts, would have prevented any meaningful peace efforts from taking place.
If Harris were in power, the Middle East would still be in chaos, and America would be leading from behind rather than leading with strength and resolve.
This is a stark contrast to Trump’s approach. Throughout his presidency, Trump consistently demonstrated an unwavering commitment to standing up to regimes and factions that threatened global peace and stability.
His “America First” policy was not about isolationism; it was about making sure that American interests were prioritized in international negotiations. Trump did not shy away from making tough decisions, and his work in securing peace in the Middle East is a clear example of that leadership.
One of the key aspects of Trump’s foreign policy that set him apart from previous administrations was his ability to broker deals that others had considered impossible.
The Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab nations, were a testament to this. Trump’s approach to the Middle East was centered around pragmatism and realpolitik, rather than ideological purity or political correctness.
He recognized that peace in the region could only be achieved through direct negotiations and a willingness to make tough compromises. This approach has now culminated in the peace deal with Hamas, which could lead to a new era of stability in the region.
For those who have criticized Trump in the past, it was impossible to ignore the significance of this achievement. Even former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, no stranger to opposing Trump, publicly praised his administration for the peace deal.
Clinton acknowledged that the peace process was a step in the right direction and urged for bipartisan support to ensure its success. This recognition from Clinton was a rare moment of unity in a deeply divided political landscape.
It demonstrated that, regardless of political affiliation, the achievement of peace in the Middle East should be celebrated as a victory for diplomacy and human rights.
Kamala Harris’s reluctance to give credit to Trump, however, reflects the deeper divisions within the Democratic Party. While some Democrats are willing to recognize Trump’s achievements when it comes to foreign policy, others remain steadfast in their refusal to acknowledge anything positive about his presidency.
This refusal to offer credit for legitimate accomplishments may hurt the credibility of Harris and others in the Democratic Party, especially as the 2028 election cycle begins to take shape.
Harris’s failure to grasp the importance of this peace deal is also a reminder of why many Americans are skeptical of her leadership. Throughout her political career, Harris has been criticized for her inability to take a firm stand on important issues.
Her responses are often seen as politically motivated, designed to appease different factions rather than offering genuine solutions. In contrast, Trump’s straightforward approach to leadership, while polarizing, has produced tangible results that cannot be ignored.
While it’s clear that Kamala Harris may have struggled to navigate the complexities of international diplomacy, it’s important to acknowledge the larger context of her remarks. The Middle East is a region fraught with political and cultural challenges, and finding a path to lasting peace is no easy feat.
Trump’s success in bringing about peace, even if only in its early stages, is a testament to the power of decisive leadership. His willingness to engage with adversaries, make tough decisions, and prioritize American interests over partisan concerns is what has allowed him to achieve progress in a region where many others have failed.
In the end, regardless of one’s political affiliation, the peace deal brokered by Trump marks a turning point in the Middle East. It’s a rare example of diplomacy that has produced tangible results, and it serves as a reminder of the importance of strong, effective leadership in global affairs.
While Harris may continue to downplay Trump’s achievements, the world will continue to move forward, and history will remember who played a decisive role in shaping the future of the Middle East.
As the hostages are released and the first steps toward peace are taken, it’s clear that America made the right choice in 2020. The rejection of Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign was not just a victory for the American people, but for the entire world.
-1755771149-q80.webp "Redistricting showdown: GOP challenges, Newsom redraws… the plot thickens")
