The new ranking by the Israel Factor panel is probably the last with more than three or four candidates. We will have more questions in the weeks ahead, but the next general ranking of the candidates, a month from now, is expected to include only those candidates who're going to be there until the end - or almost until the end, at least.
And so, regarding the new ranking:
1.
Giuliani is still leading the pack, but this might be the last time. If he fails to win in Florida or doesn't do well on February 5 (Super Tuesday), the panel will have to settle on a new favorite, but who?
That's the interesting question. This month, McCain is the candidate in second place to Giuliani, but last month it was Clinton, with Bloomberg in third place and McCain as fourth.
2.
We did previously explore a head-to-head race between Clinton and McCain, and what we reached was "a surprising conclusion: For the first time since we started this project, we learn that most of the panel, in a two way race between the two leading candidates, prefers Hillary Clinton the Democrat over John McCain the Republican. This conclusion, though, doesn't change the fact that on average McCain keeps getting higher marks from the panel."
What were the reasons? In the analysis we highlighted some of the technical reasons that are to do with the way the panel ranks the candidates. But here is what we wrote in conclusion:
"Looking for a more profound, less technical explanation? You might be disappointed. It's the 'gut feeling' component of political choice. Forced to choose, people make a decision - and the panel revealed its true colors in this two-way race."
This, however, was a year ago.
3.
This month, there are three panelists who rank McCain higher than Clinton, two who rank Clinton higher, and three who give them the same mark. If the race comes down to Clinton vs. McCain, we have a couple of previous survey questions that may help us in trying to understand the potentially decisive factors in the panel's consideration of who's better for Israel:
A. Emotional attachment: McCain got 3.62 out of 5 on the leadership question. But when we compared him to other candidates, McCain trailed both Giuliani and Clinton. The explanation: The panel "suspects 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."
Will the endorsement from Senator Joe Lieberman be able to change this perception? Possibly. But this will be the panel's decision.
B. Iran: The panel, time and again, expressed its approval for McCain's position on Iran. "It is the power of centrism that played the decisive role. The power of being tough, but not too tough. McCain didn't get the best marks from most of the panelists. Many liked Giuliani's combative response better, but some thought he was overly aggressive. McCain was just the one candidate who was basically agreeable to all."
I might guess that McCain gets the upper hand in this department, but again, the panelists will be the ones to make the call.
C. Mideast policy: When we compared the three New Yorkers, we discovered that the panel trusts Clinton more than Giuliani and Bloomberg when it comes to policy in the region. It did not help her against Giuliani for other reasons. Would it be more of a factor in a head-to-head race against McCain? A lot depends on the question of policy regarding Iran.
D. Israel and Palestine: Not so long ago, we noticed an interesting fact: "Three out of the five panelists who gave Giuliani the highest mark are also the three panelists who want less American involvement in the peace process."
McCain is perceived as someone who's going to be much more involved, and this was a problem for him with some in the panel. But I don't think this would be a consideration should he run against Clinton, because she is also a candidate whom the panel expects will be more involved than the current president or a President Giuliani. Also noteworthy is that four of our panelists voted for a Bill Clinton-like involvement in the peace process.
F. The right approach: The following reasons were given by the panel when we asked why Giuliani was the best candidate:
"He can deal in a realistic way with the conflicts of Middle East"
"He will not be overly susceptible to world opinion"
"He is ready to use force when necessary"
"He knows Israel and its problems"
"He will make sure not to pressure Israel into making concessions that would leave it with indefensible borders"
"He will take into account the interests of Israel as he formulates his Middle East policy"
"He is emotionally attached to Israel and the things it represents, and is pro-Zionist"
"He is well connected within the American Jewish community"
Does this sound more like a McCain or a Clinton?
4.
If you want to understand the low rankings for both Obama and Huckabee, the the following posts should help. For Obama, here and here, and for Huckabee here and here.
5.
Bloomberg is still ranked fairly high, but last week the panel was quite adamant in saying that it would downgrade his marks should he decide to take Senator Chuck Hagel as his running mate, as some news reports have suggested.
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.
