Judt was first to get both barrels of anti-Semitism innuendo from deputy dawg Wieseltier

on 45 Comments

Andrew Sullivan used to work at the New Republic, and did pieces for Leon Wieseltier, before his betrayal: questioning the special relationship with Israel. Then Wieseltier turned on him, saying he has a "serious problem," which we learn by implication is anti-Semitism, by toiling through 4500 words of claims that Sullivan is a conspiracy theorist who "belongs to the party of Mearsheimer and the clique of Walt."

Before Sullivan there was Tony Judt. He also worked for Wieseltier at the New Republic till Judt’s betrayal: coming out for one state in the New York Review of Books. So before long, Wieseltier accused Judt of anti-semitism, in exactly the manner he deploys now–without, as Sullivan put it, "the candor to say so"–including the supposed deal-closer, that he was a fellow traveler of Mearsheimer and Walt. From Right Web:

On the influence of the so-called Israel lobby in the United States, Wieseltier has been particularly venomous, arguing that promoters of the idea of "the Lobby" are conspiracy theorists, including highly respected scholars Tony Judt, Steve Walt, and John Mearsheimer. When a scheduled talk by Judt in October 2006 at the Polish Consulate in New York Embassy was cancelled after the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee complained, Wieseltier wrote in the Washington Diarist in October 2006: "The more significant point is that what Judt was prevented from delivering at the Polish consulate was a conspiracy theory about the pernicious role of the Jews in the world. That is what the idea of ‘the Lobby’ is. It is Mel Gibson’s analysis of the Iraq war. It is not just an analysis of the impact of AIPAC on particular resolutions and policies: such an analysis requires a detailed knowledge of American government, specifically of Congress, that I suspect Judt does not possess and that his fellow heroes Mearsheimer and Walt have been shown to lack. It is a larger claim, a historical claim, a claim about a sinister causality, about the power of a small group to control the destiny of a large group. And it is a claim with a sordid history."

45 Responses

  1. otto
    February 12, 2010, 3:38 am

    the power of a small group to control the destiny of a large group

    Here one can only say that the power of a small group to control the destiny of a large group is one of the most banal and widely accepted findings in the modern understanding of politics.

    • Pamela Olson
      February 12, 2010, 3:04 pm

      So Judt was shut down in his attempt to talk about the power of the Israel lobby by… the Israel lobby… which claims that its power is an anti-Semitic myth. Yet somehow it shuts down Judt’s ability even to talk about the Israel lobby.

      Wieseltier irony-meter must be turned off.

      • Citizen
        February 12, 2010, 4:34 pm

        You mean like Phil Maher’s is off? Every notice how savage he is as a hip anti-religious guy, and yet there is only two religions he (rightfully) ridicules? Same with that
        other J G Italian American stand up comedian… Watch them on HBO Comedy Channel special repeats; and Maher on his regular show.

      • ahmed
        February 12, 2010, 7:17 pm

        You mean Bill Maher?

        Funny that a few student hecklers at UC Irvine have violated the free speech rights of Michael Oren, who proceeded to deliver his lecture, but shutting down an event is a-OK.

  2. Shmuel
    February 12, 2010, 3:45 am

    It is a larger claim, a historical claim, a claim about a sinister causality, about the power of a small group to control the destiny of a large group. And it is a claim with a sordid history.”

    Imagine that, a small group controlling the destiny of a large group. Unheard of anywhere any time in human history. Certainly not today. And its not as if Wieseltier himself belongs to a powerful elite or anything.

    Intellectual postering to cover the collective posterior of one’s own privileged class also has a rather sordid history.

    • Shmuel
      February 12, 2010, 3:48 am

      Posturing. Nothing like a typo to mess up an attempt to be really clever (posturing?).

      • Cliff
        February 12, 2010, 7:38 am

        i wish we had an edit feature, wink wink nudge nudge Phil!

    • Citizen
      February 12, 2010, 7:27 am

      I guess he never read Shakespeare.
      Or heard the old saw that history is written by the winner (and then rewritten–see cvillej’s comment below in this thread).

  3. Richard Parker
    February 12, 2010, 6:17 am

    I’ve only just managed to read Wieseltier’s long and over-wrought screed, but I did manage to find a little jewel:

    Most important, the grounds of Krauthammer’s opinions are no more to be found in, or reduced to, his Jewishness than the grounds of the contrary opinions–the contentions of dovish Jews who denounce torture, and oppose Israeli abuses in the Gaza war, and insist upon a diplomatic solution to the threat of an Iranian nuclear capability–are to be found in, or reduced to, their Jewishness. All these “wings” are fervent Jews and friends of Israel. There are many “Jewish” answers to these questions. We all want the Torah on our side. And the truth is that the Torah has almost nothing to do with it.

    • cvillej
      February 12, 2010, 6:23 am

      “We all want the Torah on our side. And the truth is that the Torah has almost nothing to do with it.”

      This is what it always comes down to for these poor, benighted creatures: if the Torah has nothing to do with it, then where’s the claim on Israel/Palestine in the first place?

      • Citizen
        February 12, 2010, 7:36 am

        “It shows that in Washington, you can be firm on your opinions; it is your principles you can be flexible on.”–Rahm Emanuel

        (As quoted by NYT and reprinted in St Petersberg Times, Feb 7, 2010 at p 15A–in the context of the operation of Congress, e.g., selective support of budget cuts)

      • cvillej
        February 12, 2010, 7:42 am

        That’s hilarious. Rahm talking about principles, I mean.

  4. cvillej
    February 12, 2010, 6:19 am

    It is a larger claim, a historical claim, a claim about a sinister causality, about the power of a small group to control the destiny of a large group.

    God save us. The rule of a majority by a dominant political minority is as old as Empire. Toynbee and Quigley even took it for granted. Maybe that’s why they don’t teach Toynbee and Quigley in academia much anymore.

    Is it just me or are many of the Elites’ gatekeepers and keymasters* going into overdrive trying to smear anyone and everyone in the media that might take issue with the Dominant Minority as “conspiracy theorists”, “anti-semites”, “kooks” and the like?

    Who are the Dominant Minority? Newsweek called them “The Superclass” a couple of years ago.

    What all Gatekeepers and Keymasters look like under their makeup.

  5. Citizen
    February 12, 2010, 7:52 am
  6. Richard Parker
    February 12, 2010, 8:13 am

    cvillej’s comments are very valuable. But he gets it wrong about these poor benighted creatures.

    Israel has the 4th most powerful airforce/army on the planet, all paid for by the US. (Suckers to spend $3billion a year on that shitty little Levantine country)

    Israel has used that massive force to attack Gaza and Lebanon, neither of which has any air defences, and wreak havoc, killing more than 3000 perfectly innocent civilians.

    • cvillej
      February 12, 2010, 8:31 am

      In the material sense, you’re 100% correct, Richard. I was speaking of the poverty of their souls.

      I have every faith that those brave little think-tankers and ‘zine denizens of DC that stand on the turrets and defend poor widdle Zionism from us sniveling masses are beset by the worst neurotic fears and internal demonic tortures. Good.

      This debacle with Sullivan reminds me of Joseph Sobran being fired from the National Review by Buckley in the early 90’s when Sobran “went off the reservation” (Sobran’s words) regarding Israel. That times have changed is shown by the fact that Sullivan still has his job.

      Sobran is the source of “An anti-semite is someone that Jews dislike.”

      • Mooser
        February 12, 2010, 11:45 am

        “An anti-semite is someone that Jews dislike.”

        How come I’ve never heard that before? My fault, I guess, I should have.

  7. Julian
    February 12, 2010, 9:27 am

    Martin Kramer Just exposed Walt as a conspiracy nut. It’s actually amusing the limits of Walt’s knowledge.
    “As I recall that discussion, it was less to do with specifics about what we were going to do on Iraq or, indeed, the Middle East, because the Israel issue was a big, big issue at the time. I think, in fact, I remember, actually, there may have been conversations that we had even with Israelis, the two of us, whilst we were there. So that was a major part of all this.”
    Walt’s conclusion: “Blair is acknowledging that concerns about Israel were part of the equation, and that the Israeli government was being actively consulted in the planning for the war.” Walt goes on to declare that “more evidence of their influence [of Israel and the Israel lobby] on the decision for war will leak out,” and that “Blair’s testimony is evidence of that process at work.”
    When people who don’t know much about the Middle East, like Stephen Walt, pose as experts, they make basic mistakes of chronology. So let me remind him of exactly what coincided with the Crawford meeting of April 6-7, 2002.
    Israel launched Operation Defensive Shield in the West Bank on March 29. Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon ordered the operation in response to a wave of Palestinian suicide bombings. Its objective was the reoccupation of West Bank cities, dismantling the infrastructure of terror, and laying siege to Yasser Arafat in his Ramallah HQ. On April 2, Israeli forces battled their way into Bethlehem and secured Jenin city, and on April 3, they began to clear out the Jenin refugee camp. When Bush and Blair sat down in Crawford, Israel was laying siege to terrorists holed up in the Church of the Nativity, and the Battle of Jenin was in full swing. The Arab propaganda mills exploited the fog of war to make the operation seem like Sabra and Shatila redux, replete with massacres and mass graves. Arab leaders bombarded Bush and Blair with demands for action to stop Israel.
    link to martinkramer.org
    I would love to see a response from Walt. It won’t happen, but it would be interesting.

    • cvillej
      February 12, 2010, 9:39 am

      The Arab propaganda mills exploited the fog of war to make the operation seem like Sabra and Shatila redux…

      Progress! 10 years ago, I could never get any pro-Zionist to even admit that Sabra and Shatila ever happened.

    • Taxi
      February 12, 2010, 9:54 am

      Why what can Walt learn from a fundamentalist like you pray tell?

    • Citizen
      February 12, 2010, 10:53 am

      “… consider the following passage from an editorial in the Jewish newspaper Forward, published in 2004:

      As President Bush attempted to sell the war .. in Iraq, America’s most important Jewish organizations rallied as one to his defense. In statement after statement community leaders stressed the need to rid the world of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. Some groups went even further, arguing that that the removal of the Iraqi leaders would represent a significant step toward bringing peace to the Middle East and winning America’s war on terrorism”

      The editorial also noted that “concern for Israel’s safety rightfully factored into the deliberations of the main Jewish groups.”

      The Forward, it is worth noting, is well-connected and has a well-deserved reputation for probity in its reporting on the American Jewish community.”

      I advise you all to go to Walt’s articles on this subject, where he has laid out much more relevant information for his thesis. Note especially his specific list of MSM
      pundits who pushed for the war with Iraq, and also Israeli leaders. Attacking Iraq
      was seen as an easy way to then attack Iran; to the neocons an Israel, it was just a matter of which step to take first and Shrub really didn’t like Iran’s attempt to
      kill his Daddy.

      It’s really not either/or. At Crawford, everybody had their own agenda for attacking Iraq. The point is, Israel was an equal player there. So Bush Co and Israel
      decided they could both have their cake and eat it too. And each thought a quick easy war with Iraq would benefit them politically on the domestic front, and geo-strategically in the Middle East.

    • potsherd
      February 12, 2010, 12:03 pm

      Ah, Martin Kramer – another Julian source.

      Julian needs to learn how to quote his souces, rather than making it appear they are actually Julian’s words, given that all Julian knows how to do is regurgitate right-wing shit.

      But if Kramer, or Julian, needs a response, I will provide it: The fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc In short, just because A comes before B doesn’t mean that A has anything to do with B. Or in shorter, chronology doesn’t mean shit or squat.

    • marc b.
      February 12, 2010, 1:46 pm

      Yet more breathless, juvenile hyperbole from Julian. Despite Kramer’s smug confidence that he ‘demolished’ Walt’s arguments on this point or others, he provides no evidence of his claims. The importance of Blair’s quote is two-fold: 1. The failure of the Chilcot crew to ask the natural series of follow-up questions that would flow from Blair’s murky response; and 2. The context of the ‘conversations that we had even with Israelis . . ..’ Contrary to the simpleton’s chronology provided by Kramer, the possible discussion of ‘Operation Defensive Shield’ does not exclude any other topic of discussion. In fact, while Kramer criticizes, (I think rightly) the lack of evidence that Iraq was a point of discussion in that conversation, he provides a necessarily incomplete chronology of Israeli-American affairs as ‘proof’ of what was discussed. Again, this is a juvenile debating tactic, making accusations against your opponent, while simultaneously resorting to the same conduct.

      What is missing from Kramer’s explanatory chronology? Ehud Barak, in a September 4, 2002 NYT piece alleged that “Saddam Hussein’s nuclear-weapons program provides the urgent need for his removal. . . . Few will doubt Mr. Hussein’s readiness to use a nuclear weapon against American assets or Israel . . ..” Not to outdone, two weeks later Benjamin Netanyahu wrote in the WSJ that Saddam Hussein was “feverishly trying to acquire nuclear weapons” and that while it was possible to eliminate the Iraqi nuclear threat 20 years by way of surgical strike, as the IAF had done in 1981, “[t]oday nothing less than dismantling his regime will do.” Ominously, Netanyahu wrote the piece “as a citizen of the country that is most endangered by a pre-emptive strike. For in the last gasps of his dying regime, Saddam may well attempt to launch his remaining missiles, with their biological and chemical warheads, at the Jewish state.”

      Israeli military leaders were also beating the drums for war with Iraq. Aluf Benn wrote in Ha’aretz:

      “Senior IDF officers and those close to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, such as NSA advisor Ephraim Halevy, paint a rosy picture of the wonderful future Israel can expect after the war. They envision a domino effect, with the fall of Saddam Hussein followed by that of Israel’s other enemies: Arafat, Hassan Nasrallah, Bashar Assad, the ayatollah of Iran and maybe even Muhammar Gadaffi. Along with these leaders, will disappear terror and weapons of mass destruction.” The debate between the US and its NATO allies over the necessity of an invasion of Iraq also presented an opportunity, as the IDF’s planning department saw it, “to remove pro-Palestinian Europeans from the Middle East. A senior source said Saturday that the US will punish the Europeans for their back-stabbing on the road to Baghdad, and will no longer ask them for input regarding Israeli concessions.”

      So, no, Kramer didn’t do anything to refute the claim that Israel discussed the invasion of Iraq with the US and UK beforehand. Even if Israeli officials were not directly involved in discussions between Blair and Bush in Crawford, Texas in April 2002, it’s highly improbable that they weren’t involved at some point, as both Barak and Netanyahu publically expressed their concern about Saddam’s non-existent nuclear program, Netanyahu even stating in his WSJ article that the defense of Israel was the responsibility of the US government.

      • RoHa
        February 13, 2010, 12:48 am

        ” The failure of the Chilcot crew to ask the natural series of follow-up questions that would flow from Blair’s murky response”

        C’mon. These are Establishment insiders, representatives of the Great and the Good. They know what can be said and what can’t be said.

      • marc b.
        February 13, 2010, 3:04 pm

        Agreed. I was a bit lazy with my choice of words. A further interrogation of Blair would naturally flow from objective questioners.

        My greater point is that Julian and Kramer (I loved him on ‘Seinfeld’) operate in the upside down world where one assumes in the first instance that Israel wouldn’t have coordinated with the US and UK prior to the attack on Iraq. The burden of proof should properly be on dolts like them to show that such conversations didn’t take place, particularly given the history of the 1st Gulf War (scuds and all), and the expectation that Saddam would attack Israel in response to a US/UK offensive.

  8. Colin Murray
    February 12, 2010, 10:08 am

    Prosor gives many interviews to the British media and lectures at university campuses throughout the country. Although he says he has encountered anti-Israel demonstrations on almost every campus, Prosor has told his people to increase their campus activity.

    “What is now happening in London universities will happen, at most, in five years at all the large universities in the United States,” he says.

    from: Think tank: Israel faces global delegitimization campaign


    The mayor’s decision [to demolish 200 Palestinian homes, most of them in Silwan], warned Meir Margalit, a Jerusalem city councilor, was comparable to the “price tag” policy of the settlers in the West Bank, who have attacked Palestinian villages in retaliation against official attempts to dismantle a few of the settlement outposts dotting Palestinian territory.

    “But the difference here is that the price tag is being levied not by the settlers themselves but by the municipality and the government on their behalf,” he said.

    from: High Price Tag for Settlers’ Eviction

  9. Bruce
    February 12, 2010, 12:41 pm


    You and Kramer will have to do much better than this to expose Walt as a conspiracy nut. Despite Kramer’s illusions of grandeur and hasbara sidebars, nothing in his blogpost or your summation refutes the long, well-reasoned posting from Walt on Monday,

    Blairs’s remark before the Iraq Investigation Committee is so ambiguous, if not incoherent, it could be interpreted either Walt’s or Kramer’s way. Maybe Kramer can get Blair to clarify, that would be a first in eight years.

    How about taking a shot at the rest of Walt’s argument? I’d be eager to hear how all those remarks from Israeli leaders and lobbyists were just idle chitchat and had no relevance.

    I would love to see your response, as I’m sure you know more about the Middle East than Walt. It won’t happen though, but it would be interesting.

  10. VR
    February 12, 2010, 1:51 pm

    I want everyone to note that this is not a defense of Julian, nor a buttress to the statement he made above, it is just an observation of mine regarding M&W book about the Lobby. It does an outstanding job in pinpointing the lobby in its makeup and operations, for this it is an outstanding work smashing a taboo in regard to naming the lobby and its activities.

    However, where M&W fall is the assessment of US foreign policy, and the consequent activities (see their historical accounts in the book). One would get the impression that they believe that the US was just a lumbering giant, tripping over obstacles in the ME, and being lead by the nose solely by the lobby – as if there are no there interests here, and that the US is the equivalent of a benevolent mental retard (a gentle giant, or like the strong man in the novel Mice And Men). As if there were no military industrial complex that has an interest in this and is not in need of perpetual fueling (Iraq – Afghanistan), that there is no idea of strategic interest involved for the region (see The Grand Chessboard, by Brzezinski, or Huntington’s culture wars, etc.).

    I do not know if they wrote in this fashion because it is the position of “the realist school” to stave off all bad or malevolent activity in reference to US foreign policy, or because they just do not know what is occurring. While they certainly did a good job on the Lobby (M&W), they have a lot to be desired in their view of US foreign policy.

    • Citizen
      February 12, 2010, 4:47 pm

      Their main very courageous task was to actually spell out a major negative influence, the Israel Lobby elephant in the room for decades. They took great pains to not say the Lobby was the only negative significant influence on US foreign policy in the Middle East. The dangers of the military-industrial complex itself has been known since Ike pointed it out, and has been a regular subject of discussion. Same for the Cold War and Post Cold War chessboard. M & W deserve every bit of credit for adding the previously unmentioned third factor substantially affecting and effecting
      US foreign policy and foreign aid in the Middle East for decades.

      • VR
        February 12, 2010, 11:45 pm

        Well Citizen, I did say everything you said, my only concern was the anemic points in the volume of US hegemony and its designs. You cannot miss it in their volume. As far as “the military-industrial complex itself has been known since Ike pointed it out, and has been a regular subject of discussion,” where in the book or here for that matter? Find me a post here, or where it is mentioned as a main factor in the book, good luck (it might have been a subject of discussion here, but it has never been a part of the posting here).

        In the book it is always the US trying to handle crisis, never the participation nor the agitation to crisis. All of the kingdoms and dictators in the ME suddenly pop up out of their own accord, no US influence. There is a lot of discussion of “US interest” in the book, but nothing about the detrimental effect on the ME region. I mean I could go on and on, do you want me to painfully quote the points one after another?

        Indeed, Israel is an elephant in the room, and the lobby needed to be exposed (and still needs to be exposed), but when you truncate the detrimental activity of US actions in the ME of its own accord both before Israeli significance and afterwords, you make the “elephant” omnipotent. This is a danger, and the absence of US activity without this “omnipresent” influence of the lobby is troubling. All you need is a little ignorance of history, or some strange idea about the exceptionalism of the US (weird founding ideas, the “inerrant” nature of founding documents, etc.) and you get the wrong and incorrect of idea. That is all I am saying, and you cannot brush it off with a terse paragraph.

    • syvanen
      February 13, 2010, 12:52 am

      VR you make a very good point here. M&W are theorist and supporters for American foreign policy. What they have done to antagonize the Zionists and the Neocons is their insistence that uncritical support of Israel is not in the interests of the US foreign policy goals. There is nothing in their writings to suggest that they object to America’s right of dominance over the rest of the world. They point out that our unilateral support of Israel is hindering our imperial ambitions.

      For those of us who believe that it is not in the American people’s interest to dominate the entire globe with it’s bloated military and the 700 + military bases then it is clear that M&W are not on our side. Having recognized this fact, we must realize that what they say is still important — it could lead to justice for the Palestinians. Do not expect them to be our allies in the bigger goal dismantling the military/industrial state that Ike warned us against or in our goal of allowing other nations to develop and grow along their own cultural and historical trajectories. I think this is called accepting tactical allies but realizing that this might not be a strategic ally.

      • VR
        February 13, 2010, 2:20 am

        syvanen, I wonder if anyone noticed that M&W were not drummed out of their teaching positions? Now, that is not to say that they were not hounded and vilified, but they are still gainfully employed.

  11. DICKERSON3870
    February 12, 2010, 3:30 pm

    RE: “deputy dawg Wieseltier” – Weiss
    Deputy Dawg Intro (00:49) – link to youtube.com

    • DICKERSON3870
      February 12, 2010, 3:37 pm

      P.S. Deputy Dawg Outro (01:01) – link to youtube.com

      • Richard Parker
        February 13, 2010, 6:17 am

        Well, it’s raining cats, dogs, and small humans here in the Philippines. Plus we have just survived an unprecedented week, of which 7 days had electricity cuts lasting up to 12 hours. That’s not normal, even in this weather.
        I don’t know what tomorrow will bring, but I fear the worst.
        Meanwhile, the temperature hovers between 76F and 82F, as it always does.

  12. Richard Parker
    February 13, 2010, 1:35 am

    VR – However, where M&W fall is the assessment of US foreign policy, and the consequent activities (see their historical accounts in the book). One would get the impression that they believe that the US was just a lumbering giant, tripping over obstacles in the ME, and being lead by the nose solely by the lobby

    Well, the US is just a lumbering ,and very stupid, giant, tripping over obstacles in the ME, and being lead by the nose solely by the Israel lobby, representing that shitty liitle country in the Levant, to whom it pays $ 3 billion a year

    • VR
      February 13, 2010, 2:01 am

      hehehe thanks for the support Mr. Parker. That may be a current condition like you say to a great degree, however it cannot follow the course of repeat history before the existence of Israel. For that you need to look at the USA and its relationship to the world. The funny thing about it, is that it does not seem to change, and for a short course see –


      • VR
        February 13, 2010, 2:41 am

        Or you could look at things this way if you like –


        If you know what I mean

  13. Richard Parker
    February 13, 2010, 5:57 am

    Thanks VR for the links – I didn’t know the ‘prehistory’ of the US at all, but it didn’t surprise me in the least. I know enough about the history of the Philippines to be aware of the cynicism of Americans who came here in 1898 to ‘liberate’ the new republic from the Spanish, and promptly reneged on their promises, leading to a war that lasted 15 years.
    link to en.wikipedia.org

    • Richard Parker
      February 13, 2010, 6:06 am

      Though quite what America has to gain with its unholy alliance with Israel is difficult to see – no territory to gain (well, perhaps, a big goddam ungovernable mess in Iraq, and a heap of 4000 American corpses).

      George Orwell put it well in ‘1984’, which turned out to be about two decades too early.

      Endless war, and endless bleeding of the US Treasury

    • VR
      February 13, 2010, 10:40 am

      Perhaps Mr. Parker, as you studied the massacres in the Philippines you could identify US aim at the time by their policies – one being to kill all males over the age of ten. Or simply by the fact that the USA has been “liberating” countries for quite a long time, while Israel was merely a gleam in someones eye.

  14. romal
    February 13, 2010, 2:04 pm

    Organised jewry is the real problem in the western democracies. Organised jewry always works for what is “good for the jews”. Just look at the US’s first FTA….it was with Israel and of course israel got everything and the US got nothing but a problem. A nation 7000 miles away gets to bid on US federal and state contracts. With tribal memebers inside these different governments is it any wonder that israel gets contracts. An israeli firm is the contractor that runs security at many US airports…talk about put the wolf guarding the henhouse. I believe I read they are also providing security at some US nuclear sites.

    As far as a small group controlling a large one….well lets see….AIPAC has 100000 memebers and a budget of some $65mm. Most MSM in the US has someone jewish as its president ceo cfo or whatever and they let any propaganda be printed as needed. If you dont beleive me go check it for yourselves. Then we have Confernece of presidents.

    New York, January 28, 2010 … The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations congratulated the leadership and members of the Senate for unanimously adopting the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2009 (S. 2799) today. “This statement is a resounding declaration by members of the Senate who joined their counterparts in the House of Representatives, who passed by an overwhelming vote the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act last month, reflecting an overwhelming consensus in the United States that Iran must not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. Leaders of Iran have rejected every offer, including last week again turning down enrichment of uranium outside of the country, and are racing ahead in all aspects of their nuclear weapons program, including missile technology and weaponization. The measure now goes to the House-Senate Conference and we urge them to return the bill to both Houses as quickly as possible,” said Chairman Alan Solow and Executive Vice Chairman Malcolm Hoenlein.

    American Friends of Likud
    American Gathering/Federation of Jewish Holocaust Survivors
    America-Israel Friendship League
    American Israel Public Affairs Committee
    American Jewish Committee
    American Jewish Congress
    American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee
    American Sephardi Federation
    American Zionist Movement
    Americans for Peace Now
    Anti-Defamation League
    Association of Reform Zionists of America
    B’nai B’rith International
    Bnai Zion
    Central Conference of American Rabbis
    Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America
    Development Corporation for Israel / State of Israel Bonds
    Emunah of America
    Friends of Israel Defense Forces
    Hadassah, Women’s Zionist Organization of America
    Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society
    Hillel: The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life
    Jewish Community Centers Association
    Jewish Council for Public Affairs
    The Jewish Federations of North America
    Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
    Jewish Labor Committee
    Jewish National Fund
    Jewish Reconstructionist Federation
    Jewish War Veterans of the USA
    Jewish Women International
    MERCAZ USA, Zionist Organization of the Conservative Movement
    NCSJ: Advocates on behalf of Jews in Russia, Ukraine, the Baltic States & Eurasia
    National Council of Jewish Women
    National Council of Young Israel
    ORT America
    Rabbinical Assembly
    Rabbinical Council of America
    Religious Zionists of America
    Union for Reform Judaism
    Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America
    United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
    Women’s League for Conservative Judaism
    Women of Reform Judaism
    Workmen’s Circle
    World ORT
    World Zionist Executive, US
    Zionist Organization of America

    Need I say more

Leave a Reply