Kissinger got us, Warren Christopher didn't

The updated Israel Factor (Giuliani still first, Gingrich second, Clinton third) included one question not directly related to the Presidential race. If last month we asked the panel to rank Israeli Prime Ministers in the American arena (Rabin first, Netanyahu and Sharon second), this month we asked to rank American State Secretaries in the Israeli and Middle Eastern Arena. Here are some of the highlights (you can see the numbers here).

Kissinger

It was a long time ago, which might have made it easier, and the aura now surrounding everything Kissinger didn't skip the Israel Factor panel. Kissinger is ranked first on understanding the Middle East, understanding Israel and executing the policies of the administrations in which he served (Nixon, Ford).

Shultz

George Shultz came second on most parameters which I thought was surprising. He didn't have any major success in the region like Kissinger (cease-fire and agreements of the post Yom Kippur war), Baker (the Madrid conference), and Christopher (peace treaty with Jordan). He didn't have huge failures (unless you count Lebanon as one of his failures), or major wars to deal with (again, Lebanon). Shultz was friendly toward Israel and represented a relatively friendly President (Reagan). He did understand the Israeli sensitivities but most of all, the Mideast was not high on his agenda as it was with others. Maybe that?s why the panel likes him.

Baker

I wrote more than once in the past about the suspicion with which Israelis treat any mention of James Baker as a possible special envoy to the region. The tough minded State Secretary was never well liked in Israel, and became even less so after his "F--- the Jews" position was revealed.
Not well liked, but professionally respected nevertheless. Our panel gave him the relatively poor 2.875 on "understanding Israel", but on the other two parameters in the survey Baker is leading the secretaries of the last decade and a half.

Christopher

Poor Warren Christopher was Secretary of State when the Oslo accords were signed, when peace with Jordan was signed, when the region seemed as if it was headed in the right direction. The Israeli-Syrian channel was still alive, Rabin was still alive, as was Assad the father, not a friend but someone Israel could treat with respect.
But Christopher doesn?t seem to get any credit for any of these numerous positive developments. The Panel ranks him as the least versed, leased influential of all Secretaries we ranked.

Rice

The panel ranked Condoleezza in the past as a possible Presidential candidate and didn't like her as such. What?s causing Rice to fall, we asked. The answer: "there is no alternative but to assume that Rice is just a miserable victim of circumstances. The panelists who are worried by the possibility of American pressure on the Palestinian issue lowered her grade because they believe that some of her statements show she is over-committed to the establishment of a Palestinian state. Others, who really have no diplomatic problem with Rice or with a certain amount of American pressure, lowered her grade because their estimation of President Bush is very low and her loyalty to his policy causes them to doubt her intelligence."

But what about Rice as someone working for the President, rather than a candidate for the Presidency herself? Here, her ranking is also not very impressive. The panel doesn?t think of her as someone familiar enough with the Mideast or Israel. Her predecessor, Colin Powel, ranks higher on both ? but rank lower on overall execution of policy. The panel thus recognizes the one indisputable strength Rice got over Powell: She?s close to the President.