Is Cruz anti-Jewish? Is Iran a new ally? 4 short notes on 2 Presidential debates

Last week's Republican and Democratic debates are not likely to change the race, but they did give us some things to think about.

1.

In the last seventy years, there has been no President from New York, and there have been three from Texas (Johnson and the two Bushes – if you don’t count Eisenhower, who was born in Texas, but then you have to count the Bushes out). So maybe Ted Cruz wasn't miscalculating in his attack on New York values. Maybe New York values – whatever that means – are a commodity that the nation, or at least the GOP primary voter, no longer wants.

Were his comments against New York values anti-Semitic? Many pundits – obviously not ones who support Cruz's candidacy – argued that they were. Some of them did it bluntly. I find these allegations quite problematic. I find them especially problematic when they originate with Jews who insist that progressive values and Jewish values are essentially the same values.

If Jewish values and progressive values are the same thing, you have to be prepared for an attack on Jewish values (that is, unless you think no one ought to be allowed to argue against progressive values). And if Jewish values aren’t identical to progressive values, then Cruz's attack on these values has nothing to do with progressive New York Jews.

And here’s a paragraph from John Podhoretz. I thought his response to this scandal was the most interesting, and the most measured. Podhoretz doesn’t believe Cruz can benefit much from his New York-themed attacks:

The base doesn’t need the “New York values” dog whistle Cruz is blowing in its direction. The base is politically and ideologically literate. Which means, maybe, Cruz and everybody else have had it entirely backwards. The Trump voter is a challenge to the Republican base as we’ve understood it since the Reagan era, not a member of it. Indeed, the Trump voter may represent a potentially new Republican base—and one that embraces Trump’s version of “New York values.”

2.

This is also an opportunity to remind some of those who have a reflexive view of the New York Jew as the arch progressive liberal that New York Jewry is fast changing. The surge of the Orthodox Jewish population in this city means that some of the New York Jew-Seinfeld clichés might be less true today than they were yesterday, and even less true tomorrow than they are today.

When Cruz said: “everyone understands that the values in New York City are socially liberal or pro-abortion or pro-gay-marriage, focus around money and the media” – I don't think he was thinking about the conservative-tilting Orthodox Jew of New York.

3.

Turning to last night's Democratic debate: did you notice that Israel was mentioned just once, and in passing?

Republican candidates last week promised to move the US embassy to Jerusalem (Bush), spoke against “betraying our ally” (Rubio), used it as example of a country that can effectively screen immigrants (Carson). But in the Democratic debate Israel was barely an afterthought. When Hillary Clinton spoke about Syria she mentioned its neighbors, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, Turkey. Democratic candidates no longer vow to move the embassy, don't think Israel has been betrayed by anyone, and have no desire to learn from Israel how to screen immigrants.

The fact that Israel was not mentioned directly is surely a sign of something. But it should not be overstated, as some of the issues raised in the debate were highly relevant to Israel. For example: both Clinton and Bernie Senders support the Iran deal, but they had some differences on whether Iran can be a useful ally in the fight against ISIS.

Clinton said: “one of the criticisms I've had of Senator Sanders is his suggestion that, you know, Iranian troops be used to try to end the war in Syria…”

Sanders said: “in terms of our priorities in the region, our first priority must be the destruction of ISIS. Our second priority must be getting rid of Assad, through some political settlement, working with Iran, working with Russia.”

4.

There is a serious debate among observers of the Obama policy, both in Washington and in Jerusalem, as to how much the President really wants the US to “pivot” towards Iran.

Sanders has this to offer: “I think the goal has go to be as we’ve done with Cuba, to move in warm relations with a very powerful and important country in this world.”

Clinton responded: “I think we still have to carefully watch them. We’ve had one good day over 36 years and I think we need more good days before we move more rapidly toward any kind of normalization.” 

This was not a question about Israel – and was not an answer about Israel – but it is really very much about Israel (and it shows why its government would much rather have a Rubio over a Sanders or a Clinton).