fbpx

The Israel Factor panel: Netanyahu should not go to Washington

[additional-authors]
January 29, 2015

Two weeks ago we sent our panel of Israeli experts – known as The Israel Factor – the first questionnaire for 2015. You will soon be able to see how the panel ranked the 2016 Presidential candidates, and how it responded to different questions of the type we usually ask. But just when we started receiving the responses from our panelists, dramatic political events made US-Israel relations a hot topic of discussion: Prime Minister Netanyahu decided to go to Washington and speak in Congress without first notifying the White House. The Obama administration reacted with fury, denying Netanyahu a meeting with the President or the Secretary of state while in town.

I have written extensively about that drama – you can read “Netanyahu in Washington: an attempt at having a dispassionate discussion” if you want to know what I think. But we felt that releasing an Israel Factor survey that does not address the recent events would be a mistake. So in a second round we asked our panelists to respond to a specific question about Netanyahu’s Washington visit. The result, as you will see, is hardly flattering for the PM.

Our question was: “Thinking about the invitation for Netanyahu to come to Washington and speak in Congress about the Iranian threat, please rank the following statements from 1 (don't agree) to 5 (totally agree)”.

Statement number one was: “Republicans in Congress invited Netanyahu as a way to wage battle against President Obama”. All panelists except one agreed and gave the statement a 4 or a 5 – the average is 4.63.

The second statement was more controversial: “Republicans invited Netanyahu to assist him in his reelection bid”. The spread of answers was wide – from 2 (namely, a panelist that disagreed) to 5 (totally agree). The final average is 3.5. In this case it doesn’t reflect a panel that was unanimous in half agreeing, but rather a split panel. Interestingly, we could not find any connection between the answers we got from the panelists on this question and the answers they gave to other questions. Namely, the range of views cannot be attributed to political tendencies or to the general appreciation of the specific panelist for Netanyahu or for Obama.

Here are some of the statements we offered that refer to Netanyahu’s achievement and actions, and how the panel voted on these statements:

Netanyahu has to use every opportunity he is offered to speak against Iran's nuclear ambitions

2.5

The invitation is a political achievement of Netanyahu's

2.14

If Netanyahu is going to Washington, Herzog should go too

3.12

Netanyahu should not accept this invitation to speak in Washington

3.87

 

Take a look at the last statement of this list – the one that got the highest ranking. Only two of our panelists believe that Netanyahu should speak in Washington. The rest of the panel gave a 4 or a 5 to the statement that says Netanyahu “should not accept the invitation”. Quite interestingly, there were several panelists that gave a high mark both to the notion that Netanyahu should not go, and also to the statement that he should “use every opportunity he is offered to speak about Iran”. That is to say: every opportunity, except for those in which he makes trouble more than advancing the cause of sanctions.

We offered the panelists the statement: “Israel should refrain from involving itself in the American debate about sanctions on Iran”, and again, we got a split answer (the average grade is 3). Israel Factor panelists are all familiar with Israeli and American politics, and many of them believe that involvement is almost inevitable. American administrations have always tried to impact Israeli elections, and Israeli leaders try to impact American policies in which Israel has a stake.

So why shouldn’t Netanyahu go?

Because the panel does not really believe in his ability to have a positive impact on US policy. We offered the following statement: “Netanyahu's speech could help make legislation against Iran more likely”.  Two panelists agreed, and gave this statement a 4. But most of the panel gave it a 2 – namely, it does not see the speech as a likely catalyst for a change of policy. Of course, the events of recent days, such as the postponement of the vote on a sanctions bill, make such predictions even more likely to prove to be correct.

The full January 2015 Israel Factor survey, with more questions and more analysis, will be published next week.

Did you enjoy this article?
You'll love our roundtable.

Editor's Picks

Latest Articles

Print Issue: Got College? | Mar 29, 2024

With the alarming rise in antisemitism across many college campuses, choosing where to apply has become more complicated for Jewish high school seniors. Some are even looking at Israel.

More news and opinions than at a
Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.

More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.

More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.