So other than the evidence that the other guy has historically demonstrated the actual actions that would make things worse, has historically demonstrated that he has no understanding, awareness or more importantly caring for anything outside of his own skin, and the fact that this running mate's entire policy is to not do anything outside of the physical United States - yeah other than those entirely provable, factual things which use the past to indicate future events, you're right we have no evidence. It's not like he did anything controversial with regards to the middle east last time he was President.
This argument is juvenile: you never know! If we put Onana up front we might get more goals. You don't have evidence of the contrary!
We get it. Israel and the US's support of it is literally the worst thing on Earth at the present moment, and you feel obliged to tell US voters that because they're not solving it one vote at a time that in your eyes we're all morally bankrupt. Your dismay at the situation pushes nihilism in your impotence to impact change. It's frustrating, sad and an indictment of a great many things. But other than maybe making you feel a bit better, what does doing this again achieve?
There is no anti-Israel candidate you can vote for. Maybe there is in your country, I've no idea, but I hope so for your sake. I hope your countries have all cut off trade with Israel (they make far more from trading with the EU than from US subsidies) and that you're out there every day ensuring your leaders are implementing such bans in an effort to end the war. In fact as the US is the truly culpable one, you should probably stop trade with them to, right?
But in the end, on November 5th, the options are Harris or Trump. That's it.