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.

Yes. Trump, during his previous term, moved the US Israel embassy to Jerusalem, which implies Israel owns it, rather than the shared control its supposed to have. That's just one example of how Trump had already moved the US towards full support of Israel's goals over Palestine.

Do I think Biden or Harris would stop them? No. Do I think Trump is going to do everything he can to empower them? Yes. He's already done some of this and I'm sure it will continue now, as he's indicated it would. You'd really have to shive your head in the sand to not see it coming.