While it's obviously fair to say that providing that aid is morally and ethically fraught (I'd say wrong), that aid is also meant to prevent a broader regional conflict from developing.

I'm unclear as to how that's supposed to work, considering Israel is bombing Lebanon and Syria (both sovereign countries that are not at war with Israel) and the US is bombing Yemen, all of which is dramatically escalating regional tensions and making the outbreak of a regional war far more likely.

On top of that, international diplomacy works on trust; undercutting an ally is extremely costly and has long-term consequences. Which is (probably) why the administration played what a reasonable person could have thought to be a cautious strategy when things began: provide the aid, and privately push hard in negotiations to reign in Israel so that they feel supported, fighting is limited, and hopefully a ceasefire gets negotiated quickly.

So...we have to support Israel's genocide in the hopes that they'll trust us enough to work with us to stop it?

Obviously, things haven't shaken out like that, and it's fair to criticize the administration for that miscalculation. However, I'd argue that trying your best and being wrong is much better than trying for the worst and being successful.

I'm not really seeing a lot of "trying," that's my point.

I'm seeing the US deliver a steady stream of weapons to a foreign power engaged in a genocide and repeatedly provide diplomatic and military cover for them to continue doing so.

I don't really care what the intent is, what we're actually doing is fueling a genocide and provoking a regional war for the sake of Israel.

That's what a Trump administration would do: fully support Israel both publicly and privately, shut down any possibility of conditioning aid or support, likely actively engage US troops in the name of fighting a terrorist organization or terrorism, and step back from negotiations for a cease-fire on the grounds that 100% of Israels demands should be met without qualifications or compromise.

I'm not sure I agree on the deployment of US troops but, as for the rest of it, we're already doing that. The administration has outright stated repeatedly that there's no "red line" on US support for Israel and the US hasn't at any stage pushed back on Israel in any meaningful way.

So how is that different exactly from your contention that Trump would do?

Instead of imposing some restraints which are growing stronger by the day due to the outcomes (though slower than many would like), it would be complete and unequivocal support of Israel regardless of outcomes.

What restraints?

there is no way a second Trump term would yield more positive results for Palestinians than a second Biden term.

I keep seeing this repeated over and over but what I never see is anyone explaining how things could be worse.

Israel is carrying out a genocide with US supplied weapons under diplomatic cover from the US. How exactly does that get worse?