I think the distinction here is a Harris presidency would at least pretend to if not actually put effort toward resolving the conflict with less bloodshed because some of the Democrat base wants that, even if it’s only symbolic and maintains the status quo and of Israel as a “strategic partner/asset”. Blinken was just on NPR explaining where their efforts have been directed (surrounded by non-answers, take it as you will), not taking into account how effective they were. We can fully expect a Trump admin to encourage Bibi’s efforts at rejecting a two-state solution or any kind of Palestinian sovereignty, and make it even harder to end the conflict in the future because Bibi wants to drag out the suffering as long as possible because that’s a key reason he’s in power. This is how I interpret it, and I believe any kind of equivalency between the two is overly cynical, which you can feel free to disagree with. If Trump’s admin somehow has a part in ending the conflict, I’d be surprised if any Palestinians make it out on the other side, and they’ll tout that as a win.

Or just make yourself out to be utterly incompetent; let them think you’re bad at your job/hobby.

“What happens when you google it? If that doesn’t help I don’t know what else to try, sorry /shrug”