The New York Factor is probably good for Israel

I had a long print edition feature on the Israel Factor's 9th survey. You can read it in full here, or make do with a couple of paragraphs. Before you do, make sure to add the new Rosner's Domain link to your rss readers: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/erosnerDomainRss.jhtml (it does not yet include all the many features we have here - What To Read, the Time Savers and the Guests, just the blogs. But it will in the near future).

NY
The Israeli panel of experts did not rate Bloomberg this month but will probably begin doing so in July. He is Jewish, unquestionably a friend of Israel and represents the most Jewish city in the United States. Diminutive in stature and soft-spoken, he is admired by residents of his city. Here is another comparison that can be drawn between 1912 and 2007: According to the polls it is Rudy Giuliani, Bloomberg's predecessor as mayor, who stands to lose votes if his successor joins the race. The candidate most likely to gain, on the other hand, is also from New York, Senator Hillary Clinton. This important state, which has not sent a president to the White House since Roosevelt (Franklin Delano, 32 years after Teddy), now has three candidates: the two leading candidates from the major parties and the most talked-about independent. That certainly reflects an increase in the "Israeli index." After all, a politician from New York cannot survive if he is not a friend of Israel.

Massachusetts
Romney was the hero of the first question addressed by the new panel. He wrote a long article in the prestigious monthly Foreign Affairs explaining his foreign policy. In brief: an emphasis on fighting Islamic extremism via economic means, strengthening America's foreign alliances and treating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as part of the issue of international Jihad. The panel concluded that his proposals are good for Israel overall (they gave him a score of 3.25, out of a possible 5) and that Romney's assessment of the "Jihadi threat" is realistic (4 out of 5); with regard to Iraq, the panel was not convinced that Romney knows what he wants (2.6 out of 5). Seven of the eight panelists gave Romney a positive overall grade, giving him a higher score on the general scale than in the past. He is now neck and neck with New Mexico's Governor Bill Richardson (in fifth place overall), and for the first time is ahead of former vice president Al Gore.

Washington
Rice was dropped from the panel rankings when there were no signs that she would run. This month it became clear once again that she is not especially admired by the panel. Last month the panel ranked Israeli prime ministers and their performance in the Washington arena, this month they turned around and graded U.S. secretaries of state and their performance in the Middle East arena and in Israel.

Only Rice's predecessor Colin Powell and President Bill Clinton's first secretary of state, Warren Christopher, were ranked lower for their implementation of administration policy. Only Cyrus Vance, Jimmy Carter's secretary of state, was rated worse at understanding Israel, and only Christopher and Vance were given poorer grades in understanding the Middle East.

Overall, Henry Kissinger is the unchallenged king of the latter question. After him, perhaps somewhat surprisingly, comes George Shultz, Ronald Reagan's second secretary of state, followed by James Baker. Baker is not usually seen as being overly fond of Israel, but the panelists apparently respect his professionalism, which has never been in doubt. One strange irony of the ranking: The secretaries of state during whose terms treaties were signed and peace seemed imminent - Vance, Christopher - ranked lowest. Either the credit did not accrue to them or the treaties look less impressive in hindsight.