This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 TEL AVIV 006113 
 
SIPDIS 
 
INFO AMCONSUL JERUSALEM 
INFO ARAB ISRAELI COLLECTIVE 
 
STATE FOR IIP/G/NEA - TERRY SCOTT 
STATE FORINFO NEA/IPA AND NEA/PPD MQUINN/, JSMITH/, 
DBENZE, NEA/IPA 
STATE INFO 
 
JERUSALEM PASS ICD DANIELS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: IS KPAO KMDR PREL PGOV IS MEDIA REACTION REPORT
SUBJECT: ISRAELI MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE U.S. 
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS 
 
 
¶1. Summary: The Israeli media followed the U.S. 
Presidential elections with great interest.  From the 
campaign through to the aftermath, commentators focused 
their attention on several issues: the prospects for 
changes in U.S.-Israel policy, the likelihood of 
broader changes in U.S. policy in the Middle East, and 
the impact of the Jewish vote in the United States. 
End summary. 
 
¶2. The 2004 U.S. Presidential elections attracted a 
great deal of interest among the Israeli media.  As 
Israel's most important strategic and political ally, 
the U.S. is typically followed quite closely in the 
Israeli press.  From the primary campaigns, and 
particularly since the two party conventions, Israeli 
media covered the elections with great interest. 
Coverage of the campaign and the elections was almost 
daily, with both factual reporting and 
commentary/analysis provided by journalists of all 
levels, academics, experts in various fields, former 
ambassadors, and a very strong contingent of Israeli 
correspondents in the U.S. 
 
--------------------------------------------- --- 
Coverage of the campaign - Run-up to the Run-off 
--------------------------------------------- --- 
 
¶23. The 2004 U.S. Presidential elections attracted a 
great deal of interest among the Israeli media.  As 
Israel's most important strategic and political ally, 
the U.S. is typically followed quite closely in the 
Israeli press.  By the Democratic and Republican Party 
conventions this summer, coverage of the campaign in 
the Israeli media had become almost daily, with both 
factual reporting and commentary/analysis provided by 
journalists of all levels, academics, experts in 
various fields, former ambassadors, and a very strong 
contingent of Israeli correspondents in the U.S.  In 
addition to reporting on campaign activity, the Israeli 
media focused on several key areas of U.S. policy and 
the prospective impact of the election on these areas: 
the U.S.-Israel bilateral relationship, Middle East 
policy, U.S. relations with Europe, and the U.S. 
economy. 
 
¶3. In terms of the U.S.-Israel bilateral relationship, 
the Israeli media overwhelmingly agreed that the first 
Bush administration had been a good friend to Israel. 
"Conventional wisdom in Israel," wrote a senior 
columnist from pluralist Yediot Aharonot on November 1, 
"is that Bush was and will be the ideal American 
president from Israel's perspective.  The best there 
is.  Israel has no interest in seeing him replaced, and 
it has every interest in seeing him reelected."  Most 
commentators agreed, however, that both candidates 
shared a political record of support for Israel - for 
better or for worse.  A senior columnist for left-wing 
Ha'aretz observed on October 18 that "regardless of 
whether Bush is reelected or John Kerry takes his 
place, there will be no `pressure' from America" in 
terms of U.S.-Israel relations. 
 
¶4. Journalists also felt that regardless of the outcome 
of the elections, they were likely to mark the end of a 
lull in Middle East policy.  A diplomatic correspondent 
for Ha'aretz noted on October 22 that "The elections in 
the United States are fast approaching, and the 
diplomatic arena is waking up and issuing calls to 
increase international involvement in the Israeli- 
Palestinian conflict, which has vanished from both 
candidates' agendas.  Once again the familiar slogans 
are surfacing, about how stability and quiet in the 
land of Israel are essential to the security of the 
entire world, and about how the time has come to 
implement the international road map plan and get on 
with the establishment of the Palestinian state 
alongside Israel. [...] The publication of the 
disengagement plan and the close race in the elections 
in the U.S. have afforded Israel a year of relative 
freedom from international pressure. [...] Now the 
moment of truth is approaching."  In early November, 
many newspapers published articles citing a Ministry of 
Foreign Affairs report on the likely outcome of the 
election, and the implications of that outcome for both 
Israel and the Middle East. 
 
¶54. Particular attention was also paid in the Israeli 
press to the Jewish vote in the U.S., especially in the 
English-language newspapers.  An October 22 editorial 
in left-wing Ha'aretz claims that "as the election 
wooing demonstrates, the Jewish vote has not lost its 
force.  And it seems that more than ever before, the 
world is keeping an eye on the Jewish vote."  In 
response to the question "So for whom should a Jew in 
America vote?" raised in a front-page article in 
Ha'aretz on October 22, the author points out that "the 
safest vote, in terms of Israel, is a vote for Bush." 
The Israeli media closely tracked exit poll results, 
reporting on November 4 that President Bush had 
received 22 percent of the Jewish vote.  Several 
newspapers front-paged their analyses of these results, 
sharing the opinion that Bush's perception as the more 
pro-Israel of the two candidates had a great deal to do 
with his 3 percentage point increase among Jewish 
voters.  Ha'aretz quoted a Jewish voter in Brooklyn, NY 
as saying "I don't see how any Jew could not support 
Bush."  The Jewish communities in swing states such as 
Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio were also covered; as 
Ha'aretz noted on November 4, "had [the Kerry campaign] 
only persuaded a number of Jewish retirees [...] in 
southern Florida, Massachusetts senator John Kerry 
would have been elected president." 
 
--------------------------------------------- -- 
(Maybe a Subtitle Here on Absentee 
Voting???"Unprecedented Voter Turnout among 
Expatriates" 
--------------------------------------------- -- 
 
¶65. Coverage was also given, particularly in the 
English-language press, to the sizable American-Israeli 
community and the logistical issues surrounding 
absentee voting, for which eligible voters in Israel 
registered in record numbers this year.  Throughout 
most of September and October, the organizations 
representing the two parties in Israel, Democrats 
Abroad and Republicans Abroad, also ran advertisements 
in the English-language dailies on a regular basis 
reminding readers to register for absentee ballots and 
announcing events at which eligible voters could come 
to fill out applications for absentee ballots.  Both 
organizations reported unprecedented interest in 
absentee voting this year.  ((Is there any info on 
problems that absentee voters here had?  It might be 
interesting to note either way, given the coverage the 
issue received in ither countries.  Just a thought.))A 
Ha'aretz article from October 29 observed that 
"Estimates for the number of votes cast from Israel 
vary, but even the lowest account - some 30,000 votes - 
is more than double the voter turnout four years ago. 
Some estimates for the upcoming elections go as high as 
60,000 ballots."  The two major English-language 
dailies, Jerusalem Post and Ha'aretz's English edition, 
both paid close attention to difficulties experienced 
by would-be absentee voters who did not receive their 
requested ballots in time to vote.  Both newspapers 
noted the extremely high demand for the Federal Write- 
In Absentee Ballot this year, and cited both in 
articles and in paid advertisements that the American 
Citizen Services units of the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv 
and the U.S. Consulate General in Jerusalem offered 
extended hours to address the "increased demand for 
voter assistance." 
 
--------------------------------------------- --------- 
November 2-3: Intense Coverage in the Electronic Media 
--------------------------------------------- --------- 
 
¶76. The electronic media also showed great interest in 
the U.S. elections.  Although three channels (Channels 
1, 2, and 10) have Washington-based correspondents, 
they all in addition sent top journalists to cover 
other angles of the elections, such as showing coverage 
of the results from Kerry's headquarters in Boston. 
Most of these journalists left for the U.S. at least a 
week in advance of the elections and broadcast daily 
reports from the country.  On the day of the elections 
(November 2) all TV stations had extensive reports on 
their daily TV news shows covering the election 
results, including interviews with people on the 
streets, and footage from the U.S. and different 
experts.  At 10:00pm local time Channel 1 held a 
special program, "America is Choosing," and Channel 2 
had a "special U.S. elections" program.  Coverage 
resumed early on the morning of November 3.  All three 
channels had special U.S. elections programs that began 
at 06:00am local time and lasted for at least three 
hours.  This coverage of the results continued 
throughout the day with special news bulletins and 
extended news programs.  All the news programs included 
round tables hosting U.S. experts, the station's 
various commentators, Israeli officials; the topics 
discussed were U.S.-Israeli relations; Arab world 
response, Middle East peace process and more.  Local 
radio stations (Israel Radio and IDF Radio) extensively 
reported on the results as they came in during their 
regular morning news shows.  The stations hosted 
experts and aired their analyses of all possible 
scenarios, discussing the technicalities of the 
Electoral College, the rules surrounding Ohio's 
provisional ballots, etc. 
 
--------------------------------- 
"The Sigh of Relief in Jerusalem" 
--------------------------------- 
 
¶87. Commentary on the results of the U.S. elections 
began on November 4 and remained a major topic for 
several days before being eclipsed by news related to 
Yasser Arafat's health.  The media generally agreed 
that Israeli officials were relieved to learn of Bush's 
re-election.  Senior columnists for pluralist Yediot 
Aharonot wrote that "When it became clear that [Bush] 
would remain in the White House for another four years, 
many figures in the political establishment allowed 
themselves a broad smile of relief."  A senior analyst 
for the mass-circulation daily Maariv wrote that "The 
sign of relief in Jerusalem yesterday was heard all the 
way to Washington."  In his front-page analysis in left- 
wing Ha'aretz, Aluf Benn observed that "Prime Minister 
Ariel Sharon gambled big time on George Bush, and 
wasn't disappointed.  Sharon maintained a public 
distance from the U.S. presidential campaign, focusing 
in recent months on domestic matters, but everyone knew 
which candidate had his vote.  The alliance with Bush 
was the cornerstone of Sharon's policy from the day he 
took office, and he stuck to it." 
 
¶98. Most commentary explored the implications of Bush's 
re-election for U.S. policy in the Middle East, noting 
that the tenor of the relationship between the U.S. and 
Israel would be subject to change.  "Senior political 
sources believe that Bush, in his second term of 
office, free from the shackles of the Jewish vote, will 
be much more involved in events of the Middle East," 
wrote senior columnists Itamar Eichner and Orly Azulai 
of Yediot Aharonot.  "The political sources fear that 
Bush could try to rehabilitate his relations with 
Europe and the Arab world and buy quiet in Iraq - at 
Israel's expense."  Senior analyst Ben Caspit of Maariv 
concurred: "We have won, but now we will pay dearly for 
it, because George Bush in his second term could be 
much more dangerous than George Bush in his first.  It 
should not be forgotten that Bush's love affair with 
Sharon came late, and not before Bush had wagged his 
finger and threatened quite a few times.. Throughout 
his first term in office Bush was planning how he would 
get to his second.  He knew he would need Jewish money 
and votes.  Now, throughout his second term, he will be 
planning how he is going to go down in history.  To 
make history he has to get out of Iraq honorably, win 
the war on terrorism, and reduce tension in America. 
Of course, he will not be able to do all of that by 
himself.  Bush will have to mend his bridges with the 
world, to conciliate with Europe, and to prove to the 
Moslem world that he has not declared a crusade against 
it.  The price tag for all these initiatives is simple: 
pressure on Israel.  Bush can deliver the goods at our 
expense, and the pressure on him to do so will be 
considerable." 
 
¶109. Reflecting a more skeptical minority view from the 
left, commentator Ben-Dror Yemini of Maariv went 
further, suggesting that a more demanding U.S. policy 
would be a good thing for Israel: "Bush's total support 
for Sharon does not help us to achieve the important 
Zionist aim of a democratic Jewish state.  A little 
more American pressure on the issue of the settlement 
outposts would help us in the struggle against the 
creeping realization of "Greater Palestine" of [...] 
"Greater Israel."  ." ((Ruth Anne - i realize this is a 
quote but it does not actually make sense to say both 
"Greaters" here.  Maybe paraphrase would be clearer? 
But America's complacency is leading to two 
consequences: first, it has given the establishment of 
new outposts a tail wind, and secondly, it has 
exacerbated hostility toward the United States.  The 
West has to support Israel.  But the West is divided, 
partly thanks to Bush.  We would be better served by a 
West united in support for Israel on the basis of a two- 
state solution, one of thethat is ((same here)) Jewish 
and democratic,[...] than a fragmented West in which 
Bush remains president and consequently that solution 
becomes even more remote." 
 
¶11. Comment: The intense scrutiny paid to the U.S. 
Presidential elections by the Israeli media is 
reflective of nothing more or less than the vital 
importance that Israel attaches to its relationship 
with the United States.  The broad range of commentary 
on the campaign and the elections simply amplified the 
ongoing discussion in the Israeli media about the 
nature of this relationship.  End comment. 
 
CRETZ