Three groups in the state last month attempted to coordinate a single statement on the Iran nuclear deal now under consideration by Congress. The underlying sentiment: Working with Congress, the Obama administration should find a way to “address serious questions about the vulnerabilities” of the deal.

As planned, almost identical statements were released by the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston on July 21, the Jewish Federation of Western Massachusetts on July 23 and the Jewish Federation of Central Massachusetts on July 24.

Almost. The central Massachusetts federation modified a critical line in its statement away from the texts of the other two groups.

The Boston and western Massachusetts groups each concluded by urging “the Massachusetts delegation to fully investigate the flaws noted above and to not endorse the deal absent significant, specific and binding solutions to the concerns that we, and so many in our community, have about this agreement.”

The central Massachusetts federation, representing 10,000 Jews in the Worcester area, instead urged “the Massachusetts delegation to fully investigate and address the specific concerns that we, and so many in our community, have about this deal.”

“Do not endorse, absent solutions” and “fully investigate and address concerns” are significantly different postures.

Vexing things further, another Boston-area Jewish group, Boston Combined Jewish Philanthropies, outright counseled lawmakers to reject the deal the week previous, on July 17.

As Massachusetts goes, so goes the (Jewish) nation: confused.

When the agreement between major powers and Iran was released on July 14, some Jewish groups came out against it almost immediately, others have yet to weigh in. Some blared their decision on their website or Facebook page, others sent out emails unsearchable on the Internet. Some counsel a unified message, others said everyone should shout out their views.

Some statements were long, personal and anguished; others seemed to be the result of consultation with other groups, featuring almost identical language. “Utmost scrutiny” kept popping up. The Jewish federation of Birmingham, Alabama, acknowledged using the Houston federation’s statement opposing the deal as a template.

Some groups delivered mixed messages. The Jewish Federation of Greater Orange County, New York, urged making one’s voice heard, whatever one’s opinions — and then counseled attending a “Stop Iran” rally against the deal.

Here’s a survey of the statements of 46 Jewish groups from all corners of the U.S. There are 14 opposed to the deal, a lot of skeptics who are not opposed for now and a couple of just-don’t-knows. The Jewish Council for Public Affairs counted 125 regional public policy agencies across the country. JTA’s list includes those whose statements could be found. If your group has issued a statement and is not on this list, please get in touch at [email protected]

Baltimore Jewish Council — opposed: “We are gravely concerned that the agreement fails to provide for full and immediate inspections of undeclared nuclear facilities, adequate disclosure of prior military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program and prompt dismantlement of the nuclear infrastructure … If the President is right that this is the best deal that he can achieve at this time, and if he is nonetheless unwilling to walk away from it, then Congress should reject the agreement.” (July 27).

Birmingham Jewish Federation, Ala. — opposed: “The Birmingham Jewish Federation’s Board of Directors believes the proposed nuclear deal between Iran and world powers is cause for great concern; we are deeply disappointed with the details of the plan. Regretfully, we have no choice but to oppose it, and we urge others to join us.” (Aug. 8.)

Boston Combined Jewish Philanthropies — opposed: “The proposed agreement, as it currently stands, only delays critical aspects of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, thus acknowledging or even affirming Iran’s place as a threshold nuclear state … We encourage members of the community to reach out to their elected representatives in the House and the Senate to express their deep concern, and to urge them to vote against this deal.” (July 17)

Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston — “do not endorse the deal absent binding solutions”: “We reject the argument made by some that Congress cannot reject this deal because there is not a better option; that the sanctions regime will fall apart and that the only remaining option available to the United States is the use of force to curtail the Iranian nuclear threat … We urge the President and his administration to remain open to working with Congress to find a path forward on a matter that will inevitably be left to several future Presidents – of both parties – to implement successfully. As Congress begins its review of the agreement, the JCRC of Greater Boston urges the Massachusetts delegation to fully investigate the flaws noted above and to not endorse the deal absent significant, specific and binding solutions to the concerns that we, and so many in our community, have about this agreement.” (July 24)

Jewish Federation of Broward County, Fla. — “seriously question”: “We are deeply concerned about the final agreement, and seriously question whether the agreement can achieve the fundamental goal of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.” (July 17)

Jewish Federation of Central Massachusetts — “find a path forward”: “We reject the argument made by some that Congress cannot reject this deal because there is not a better option; that the sanctions regime will fall apart and that the only remaining option available to the United States is the use of force to curtail the Iranian nuclear threat … We urge the President and his administration to remain open to working with Congress to find a path forward on a matter that will inevitably be left to several future Presidents – of both parties – to implement successfully.” (July 24)

Charleston Jewish Federation and Jewish Community Relations Council, S.C. — “utmost scrutiny”: “We are hopeful that diplomatic efforts will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, and we appreciate the hard work President Obama, Secretary of State Kerry and Under Secretary of State Sherman have put into crafting this agreement. At the same time, we are concerned. Iran’s support for Hezbollah and Hamas, its human rights violations and its aggressive threats toward neighboring countries—including Israel—make the specter of a nuclear-armed Iran untenable … We urge Congress to give this accord its utmost scrutiny.” (July 14)

Jewish United Fund of Greater Chicago – “broad community consensus”: “Our JCRC, the community’s public policy umbrella body, will examine the deal in detail and will explore adopting a broad communal consensus through its democratic processes.” (July 14)

Jewish Community Relations Council and Jewish Federation of Cincinnati — “grave concerns”: “The Jewish Community Relations Council and the Jewish Federation of Cincinnati share the Obama administration’s desire and appreciate their efforts to reach a diplomatic solution that will prevent Iran from developing nuclear capability. However, we have grave concerns that the present deal may not accomplish this objective and could threaten the peace and security of numerous countries, including the United States and, more immediately, Israel. Therefore we urge Congress and our community to scrutinize the deal and its risks and implications carefully.” (July 24)

JEWISHColorado — “serious apprehensions”: “In light of recent conversations surrounding the proposed Agreement between the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, China, Russia (P5 + 1) and Iran on Iran’s nuclear program, JEWISHcolorado and the Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC) have serious apprehensions about what this agreement may enable Iran to do in the future. As Americans, as Jews, and as people who love and support Israel, we are deeply concerned that this agreement leaves the entire Middle East less stable and more vulnerable to Iran’s radical agenda … Congress needs to examine whether the agreement can effectively safeguard America and its allies from the threat posed by a nuclear Iran.” (July 23)

Jewish Community Relations Committee of Jewish Federation of Columbus, Ohio — “concerned the deal may be insufficient”: “The Jewish Community Relations Committee(JCRC) of the Jewish Federation of Columbus hopes that the agreement announced today in Vienna will resolve the issue of the Iranian nuclear threat, but we are concerned that this deal may be insufficient. We look forward to learning the specifics of the accord in the coming weeks as we seek to understand its implications and its efficacy.” (July 14)

Jewish Federation of Greater Dallas — opposed: “We can have different ideas about how to achieve the peace and security we all desire, but we cannot be silent in our opposition to an agreement that takes far too many risks with one of the world’s most dangerous regimes.” (July 15)

Jewish Federation of Delaware — opposed: “As Americans and Jews who yearn for peace and are invested in the future of our children and grandchildren, we must voice our concerns about an agreement that will destabilize a fragile region. We encourage members of our community to raise their voices in opposition to this agreement by contacting their elected representatives to urge them to oppose the Plan.” (July 23)

Jewish Federation of Greater Des Moines, Iowa — “welcome public debate”: “We share with others certain concerns about the vigilance and effectiveness of monitoring of Iran’s nuclear production sites, the unintended effects the nuclear accord will have in strengthening a regime hostile to America, Israel, and other states in the Middle East, the worry that a chain of nuclear proliferation will result from the agreement’s sunset provisions, and, as noted, that the world will eventually have to contend, again, with Iran’s threshold capabilities. Along with the Jewish Federations of North America and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA), we welcome public debate on the merits of the agreement and its close scrutiny by Congress.” (July 14)

Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Detroit — opposed: “Our desire to see lasting peace and security in the Middle East compels us to call on our community to reach out to our elected representatives in the House and Senate to express our deep concern, and to ask that they vote against this deal until further efforts produce a stronger long-term agreement with the conditions necessary to permanently eliminate the risk of a nuclear Iran.” (July 26)

Jewish Federation of Greater El Paso, Texas — “welcome Congressional and public debate”: “Iran’s prior actions prevent us from trusting its promises. Consequently, we welcome Congressional and public debate on and close scrutiny of the merits of the agreement. The sixty-day Congressional review window opens a critical period to examine the agreement and ensure that it has the rigorous inspection and compliance components that are necessary to protect our country and our allies in the Middle East.”

Jewish Federation of Greater Houston – opposed: “We are deeply disappointed with the details of the plan. Regretfully, we have no choice but to oppose it and we urge others to join us.” (July 29)

Jewish Federation of the Lehigh Valley, Pa. — “deep concerns with the vulnerabilities”: “Following a process of consultation by our professional staff and our Community Relations Council to better understand the Agreement, we take this opportunity to further express our deep concerns with the vulnerabilities of this Agreement … We encourage the President to heed the voices of those that are concerned over this Agreement and seriously address those concerns. As Congress reviews the Agreement, we urge the Pennsylvania delegation to fully investigate the flaws noted above and to only endorse an Agreement complete with significant, specific, and binding solutions to the concerns that we, and so many in our community, have about this Agreement.” (July 30)

Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles – opposed: “The Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles joins with Jewish communities across the country in urging Congress to oppose the joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran’s Nuclear Program, signed on July 14, 2015 … This Iran deal threatens the mission of our Federation as we exist to assure the continuity of the Jewish people, support a secure State of Israel, care for Jews in need here and abroad and mobilize on issues of concern.” (July 21)

Jewish Community Relations Council of Louisville, Ky. — “wary and concerned”: “We are wary, however, of a deal struck with a regime that is a serial violator of human rights, supports terrorist regimes and groups around the world, has called for the destruction of the state of Israel, and has consistently deceived International nuclear inspectors regarding the true nature of its militarized nuclear program. We call on our Kentucky congressional delegation to analyze this agreement in great detail and provide guidance to our President consistent with what is in the best interest of peace and security for the region and the world.” (July 14)

Jewish Federation of Greater Metrowest, N.J. — opposed: “The Board of Trustees of the Jewish Federation of Greater MetroWest NJ urges our Congressional delegation to oppose the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action Iran Nuclear Agreement as it stands. We take this action because we believe it is in the best interest of the United States and Israel’s security.” (Aug. 5)

Jewish Federation of Greater Middlesex County, N.J — “engage in a critical review”: “U.S. Congressional leaders are supposed to ensure that a good deal eliminate an Iranian pathway to a nuclear weapon. We encourage our elected officials to engage in a critical review of this agreement, to be sure that it achieves this goal.” (July 14)

Greater Miami Jewish Federation – opposed: “The Greater Miami Jewish Federation and its Jewish Community Relations Council are deeply disappointed with the details of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran’s Nuclear Program, signed on July 14, 2015. Regretfully, we have no choice but to oppose it and we urge others to join us.” (July 17)

Jewish Community Relations Council of Milwaukee Jewish Federation — “will require continued vigilance”: “We recognize that the P5+1 agreement with Iran is the beginning of a process that will require continued vigilance. Let us all work to make sure our government does all it can to monitor and enforce compliance.” (July 14)

Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota and the Dakotas — “deserving of bipartisan Congressional support?”: “The JCRC has consistently preferred a diplomatic resolution to the threat of a nuclear Iran. The possibility that the world’s leading exporter of terrorism could pose an existential threat to its neighbors is a scenario too grave to ignore. We commend the Obama Administration for its tireless efforts to achieve a peaceful resolution. We hope that the agreement announced today successfully curtails the Iranian threat. However, as President Barack Obama, Speaker John Boehner, and many others have stated, ‘no deal is better than a bad deal.’ The question before all of us is whether or not this is a ‘good deal’ and thus is deserving of bipartisan Congressional support.” (July 14)

Jewish Federation of Nashville — “utmost scrutiny” and “consider rejecting”: “We urge members of Congress to give this accord the utmost scrutiny and if they have any doubt at all about Iran’s ability to meet every single obligation specified in the agreement, including unfettered and unimpeded access to suspect nuclear sites, then we believe Congress should consider rejecting this agreement and endeavor to keep sanctions in place that brought Iran to the negotiating table in the first place.” (July 22)

Jewish Federation of New Orleans — “close scrutiny by Congress”: “We welcome debate on the merits of the agreement and close scrutiny by Congress. The 60-day congressional review window opens a critical period to examine the agreement and ensure that it has the rigorous inspection and compliance components that are necessary.” (July 14)

Jewish Community Relations Council of New York — “serious shortcomings”: “It appears that The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) has serious shortcomings and will not prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon … With Iran’s history of acrimony, deceit and terror, it is difficult for us to have confidence that this deal will prevent a nuclear Iran.” (July 14)

Jewish Federation of Northern New Jersey — “utmost scrutiny”: “We urge Congress to give this accord its utmost scrutiny. As the president has said, “no deal is better than a bad deal.” (July 14)

Jewish Federation of Omaha, Neb. — fact sheet: “The Omaha federation does not deliver an opinion, but summarizes the pros and cons in a fact sheet “in the hope that it provides structure and substance to the many Jewish Omaha conversations taking place today and in the weeks ahead.” (July 15)

Jewish Federation of Greater Orange County, N.Y. — “extremely troublesome”: “While we deeply appreciate the daunting task President Obama and Secretary Kerry have faced in an effort to constrain Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons there are many aspects of the current agreement that are extremely troublesome.” (While the federation urged involvement “whatever your thoughts may be about the agreement,” its statement appeared on a page headlined “Two Rallies to STOP IRAN NOW” and including ads for the rallies. “Demonstrations are an effective way to express a viewpoint,” it said, recommending attendance at a July 22 anti-deal rally in Manhattan.)

Jewish Federation of Greater Orlando, Fla. — “justify the agreement in detail”: “The agreement at hand appears to give Iran the ability to be a nuclear threshold state at the end of the agreement’s term … We urge Congress to fulfill its duty and look critically at all aspects and potential consequences of this deal before approving it. Congress must require the administration to justify the agreement in detail.” (July 14)

Jewish Community Relations Council of Jewish Federation of Palm Beach County, Fla. — “studying the contents”: “The JCRC is studying the contents of this agreement, as well as the consequences that may be anticipated from such a deal.” (July 14)

Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia — opposed: “At this time, the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia opposes the proposed nuclear agreement with Iran … Our role is to implement the mission of the Jewish Federation: to address the community’s most critical priorities in Greater Philadelphia, in Israel and around the world. We believe that the agreement in its current form puts Israel in harm’s way; the Jewish Federation must work to protect Israel’s safety.” (July 29)

Jewish Federation of Greater Phoenix — opposed: “Over the next 60 days, we should all do everything within our power to persuade the House and Senate to oppose this deal and to work toward one that achieves the necessary goals. Otherwise, the existing sanctions are a better alternative.” (July 16)

Jewish Federation of Greater Pittsburgh — “close scrutiny”: “We welcome debate on the merits of the agreement and close scrutiny by Congress. The sixty-day Congressional review window opens a critical period to examine the agreement and ensure that it has the rigorous inspection and compliance components that are necessary.” (July 14)

Jewish Community Federation of Richmond and its Jewish Community Relations Committee — “hope this accord will qualify”: “While we did not believe an accord needed to be made at all costs, we hope that upon examination this accord will qualify as a good deal.” (July 14) (The groups will hold an “urgent” forum on Aug. 25, featuring Adam Szubin, who administers sanctions for the U.S. Treasury defending the deal, and AIPAC’s Brad Gordon, calling for its rejection.)

Jewish Community Relations Council of St. Louis — “Iran not deserving of our trust”: “We are hopeful that diplomatic efforts will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. We recognize the hard work that President Obama, Secretary of State Kerry, and Under Secretary of State Sherman and their team have put into crafting this agreement. However, Iran is not a country that is deserving of our trust.” (July 15)

Jewish Federation of San Diego County — “neither oppose nor support”: “Out of respect for the diversity of opinion of our donors, the Federation will not neither support nor oppose the agreement.” (July 30)

Jewish Community Relations Council of San Francisco — “cautious hope” and “deep concern”: “We believe that the preferred solution to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program is a diplomatic one, and we acknowledge the tireless efforts of President Obama, Secretary of State Kerry and the entire U.S. negotiating team in reaching an agreement. The agreement has raised cautious hope as well as deep concern. Any Iranian nuclear weapons capability would pose a major threat to American interests, an existential threat to Israel and its western allies, and create grave security risks worldwide.” (July 14)

Jewish Federation of Sarasota-Manatee, Fla. — “may be insufficient”: “We hope the proposal announced contains measures to successfully curtail the existential Iranian threat. Yet we are concerned that this deal may be insufficient in critical safeguards necessary to block Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon.” (July 16)

Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle — “ask tough questions”: “Many well-informed observers in the U.S. and Middle East have noted that Iran’s promises to abide scrupulously by the agreement’s terms are, at best, open to question. Once sanctions are lifted, re-imposing them would be fraught with difficulty. We strongly urge Congress to fulfill its duty – to look critically at this deal and ask tough questions.” (July 14)

Jewish Federation of Silicon Valley — “utmost scrutiny”: “We are hopeful that diplomatic efforts will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, and we appreciate the hard work President Obama, Secretary of State Kerry, and Under Secretary of State Sherman have put into crafting this agreement. At the same time, we are concerned. Iran’s support for Hezbollah and Hamas, its human rights violations and its aggressive threats toward neighboring countries-including Israel-make the specter of a nuclear-armed Iran untenable … We urge Congress to give this accord its utmost scrutiny.” (July 14)

Jewish Federation of South Palm Beach County, Fla. — opposed: “We cannot be silent in our opposition to an agreement that takes far too many risks with one of the world’s most dangerous regimes. We encourage you to share your concerns with your U.S. Representatives and Senators, and urge them to join in opposing this deal.” (Week of July 20)

United Jewish Federation of Tidewater and its Community Relations Council, Va. — “cause for grave concern”: “The United Jewish Federation of Tidewater (UJFT) and its Community Relations Council (CRC) believe the proposed nuclear deal between Iran and world powers is cause for grave concern. We share the Administration’s goal of achieving a negotiated, peaceful solution to Iran’s nuclear activities. We support the efforts of the United States and its allies to arrive at a diplomatic solution, and we are grateful for their efforts. But the proposed agreement, as it currently stands, has significant flaws.” (July 21)

Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington — opposed: “Prior to the announcement of the deal, we outlined five criteria that would need to be met by any agreement to ensure Iran could not attain nuclear capabilities. Unfortunately we have reluctantly concluded that this proposed agreement does not comply with these parameters and therefore we must oppose it and call upon Congress to vote against this deal.” (Aug. 3)

Jewish Federation of Western Massachusetts — “do not endorse absent binding solutions”: “We reject the argument made by some that Congress cannot reject this deal because there is not a better option; that the sanctions regime will fall apart and that the only remaining option available to the United States is the use of force to curtail the Iranian nuclear threat … We urge the President and his administration to remain open to working with Congress to find a path forward on a matter that will inevitably be left to several future Presidents – of both parties – to implement successfully. As Congress begins its review of the agreement, our Federation, in partnership with Federations across the state of Massachusetts, urges the Massachusetts delegation to investigate fully the flaws noted above and to not endorse the deal absent significant, specific and binding solutions to the concerns that we, and so many in our community, have about this agreement.” (July 23)

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.