From the start, Senator John McCain was doing fine as far as the Israel Factor goes. In the first survey he was third out of 24, and in the fifth he was third out of 19.
We pitted him against other candidates more than once. Comparing him to both Rudy Giuliani (against whom he was always ahead in the eyes of the panel), and Hillary Clinton, we concluded that:
"The four panelists who thought Clinton is better [than McCain] were the same panelists who gave McCain the lowest grades on the question his emotional attachment to Israel. This, evidently, is an important question, and probably the most profound reason why Giuliani keeps getting better marks than McCain (and Clinton). The panelists highlighted the "emotional attachment" as the most distinctive difference between the two, with McCain scoring 2.75 to Giuliani's 4.12".
Advertisement
This week, we tested McCain again, asking the panel to read his new Foreign Affairs article. We asked about the article, and the panel said it was basically sound (giving him score of 3.75 out of a possible 5). But when we asked if it changed the panelists' minds on the senator, we got a resounding "No."
Reading the article, the panel concluded that McCain might want Israel to engage Syria more than Bush does (scoring him 3.125 out of a possible 5), might pressure Israel on settlements more than Bush (but not by much, he also got 3.125 for this - but I have the feeling that on this the panel is wrong).
The experts also think that McCain is more determined to stop Iran's nuclear program than other candidates (3.875). The subject of Iran, as we made clear many times in the past, is more important to the panel than most of the other issues.
In our latest monthly survey, McCain was fourth trailing Giuliani, Clinton and Mayor Bloomberg of New York. As we explained at the time, there is more than one possible reason for that:
"Giuliani and Clinton, who are leading the general polls, are also the leaders of the "Good for Israel" ranking. This raises another question, one that in all honesty no one can really answer. Is this similarity proof that the panel is influenced by these polls, and reacting to them it is elevating the most viable candidates to the top of the list? Or maybe it is the other way around: candidates that seem best for America in the voters' eyes are also those who tend to express views that seem to be best for Israel?"
So we tried to also ask the panel more general questions about McCain. The panelists got a list of options and were asked to judge to what extent they are compatible with their view of McCain. Here it is:
So this is the way the panel sees him, starting with the first poll, and basically unchanged until now. The panelists like his policy, admire his leadership skills and recognize his bold stand on Iran.
But they also suspect that on the "emotional attachment" test, he will not fare as well. Israelis, like all other nations, prefer the American president to be not just an ally, but also a friend. Bill Clinton was such a friend, George Bush is such a friend. The panel seems to trust Giuliani and the other Clinton to be such friends too.
But John McCain? Not so much, until proven otherwise (the panel gave him a score of 2.75 out 5). They just don't see it in him
Haaretz.com, the online edition of Haaretz Newspaper in Israel, offers real-time breaking news, opinions and analysis from Israel and the Middle East. Haaretz.com provides extensive and in-depth coverage of Israel, the Jewish World and the Middle East, including defense, diplomacy, the Arab-Israeli conflict, the peace process, Israeli politics, Jerusalem affairs, international relations, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the Israeli business world and Jewish life in Israel and the Diaspora.
