How the Ratings Work

Every candidate is placed on a six-point scale — from firmly pro-Israel (1) to most critical of Israel and supportive of Palestine (6) — using three kinds of evidence: how they vote, who funds and endorses them, and what they say.

A plain-language guide to the method · starting points, not rigid formulas · as of July 5, 2026

0How to read this

These are starting points, not formulas. Each rule suggests where a candidate begins; their own record can move them, and every final rating is a judgment written out in that candidate’s entry. The rules exist to keep those judgments consistent and to show our work — not to replace judgment with a scoreboard.

We weigh three kinds of evidence: how a candidate votes (§2), who funds and endorses them (§3), and what they say in public (§4). A rating is set by the strongest, best-documented evidence, with the rest confirming it, holding it back, or complicating it.
When the evidence points in different directions, §7 explains which kind we trust most. Every close call is written out so it can be revisited — and revised as we learn more.
The scale measures support for Israel — specifically, how far a candidate is willing to pull that support back. It does not measure a positive plan for Palestinians, because almost no one in U.S. elections runs on one. So even the most critical candidates are judged mainly by how far they step away from backing Israel.

1The six-point scale

Firmly pro-IsraelUnqualified, active support. Reaching this level takes leadership, not just reliability (see §5).

Reliably pro-IsraelDependable support without leading on it. Candidates who take major pro-Israel PAC money land here (see §3).

Supportive but criticalStill backs Israel — its defense, a two-state solution — but criticizes how it is fighting, or takes a single step toward limiting weapons.

Critical, but still within support for IsraelHas a real record of trying to withhold offensive weapons, but stops short of a full arms embargo, and still accepts Israel as a Jewish state rather than questioning its legitimacy (which is the Tier 6 line). About as far as a candidate goes while remaining inside support for Israel.

Breaks with the pro-Israel consensusBacks a full weapons embargo — including defensive systems — or cutting off all aid, firmly and consistently. A candidate who kept funding missile defense during the genocide generally can’t reach this level.

Questions Israel’s legitimacy as a stateTakes a position that challenges whether Israel should exist as a Jewish state — identifying as anti-Zionist, backing BDS by name, or supporting the Palestinian right of return — backed by a real record, with no hedging.

Split ratings like 3/4: a candidate whose record genuinely sits between two levels. Usually a step toward limiting weapons (the higher number) held back by more supportive positions (the lower number). We write the lower number first.
NR (“not rated”): no public position found yet. This means we haven’t documented an individual stance — not that the candidate is neutral.

2Evidence 1 — How they vote

The strongest and most verifiable evidence. Votes and bill sponsorships come from the official congressional record. What a candidate does in office counts for more than what they say they’ll do (§7).

Officeholders vs. challengers key distinction

An officeholder is judged by how they vote; a challenger by what they promise. The same commitment counts differently depending on whether it’s a real vote or a campaign pledge.
A sitting member who co-sponsors the Block the Bombs Act — a bill to block sales of offensive weapons to Israel — has taken a real conditioning action; a challenger who only says they support it has made a campaign promise, which counts for less.

Willingness to withhold offensive weapons

Co-sponsoring the Block the Bombs Act (as a sitting member) is the clearest single sign a candidate will withhold offensive weapons, and it creates a strong presumption of 3/4 — but a presumption the rest of the record can override, not a fixed placement (see the next point). We read it as opposing offensive-weapons sales, not as approving defensive aid — support for defensive aid counts only if the candidate says so directly.
In the Senate, repeatedly voting to block specific weapons sales (the Sanders resolutions) is the equivalent of co-sponsoring that bill — also a 3/4 (Markey, Luján). Voting only against the least controversial sales (rifles, bulldozers) is weaker and stays at 2/3 (Reed).
The presumption gives way in both directions. Reaching a clean 4 takes more than one co-sponsorship — a hard vote against an aid package, several weapons-blocking measures, or the like. And a lone or late co-sponsorship surrounded by otherwise pro-Israel or frame-keeping votes — especially with lobby money still coming in — can hold at a flat 3 (Dean, Ansari, Vasquez, Lynch), or even 2/3 (Robert Garcia). What carries a co-sponsor to 3/4 is a second conditioning act or clean money (Scanlon).

Other votes and bills that matter

None of these is a scoring formula. No single vote sets a number; each is a piece of evidence that weighs the overall read toward one end or the other. The tier is the judgment on the whole record, not the sum of these rows.

What they did	What it means
Co-sponsored the resolution calling Gaza a genocide	Recognizing the genocide supports a move toward 4. But the word alone isn’t enough to get past 3/4 without an actual vote to withhold weapons.
Co-sponsored the Nakba / right-of-return resolution	Points toward Tier 5 — it touches Israel’s legitimacy as a state, not just how it fights.
Voted NO on an Israel aid package	A hard vote to withhold support — it weighs strongly toward a clean 4, past the 3/4 edge a co-sponsorship alone shows.
Voted YES on an Israel aid package (April 2024)	A pro-Israel vote that keeps one foot at the pro-Israel end (Tier 1–2).
Funded missile defense (Iron Dome) during the genocide	Keeps a candidate out of Tier 5, which requires cutting even defensive aid. A flat 4 or a 4/5 split is still possible; a clean 5 isn’t.
Wrote Israel legislation themselves	A record strong enough to judge on its own — and, on the pro-Israel side, a sign of leadership (§5).

Timing counts. Acting early counts for more than joining late. A candidate who moved before the genocide became politically costly to ignore earns more credit than a 2026 latecomer; an early vote — when only about 14 senators were on board — counts for more than a later one.

3Evidence 2 — Who funds and endorses them

Endorsements are signs, not verdicts — adding or dropping one never changes a rating by itself; ratings move on a candidate’s actual record. Money is different: taking it from the major pro-Israel groups keeps a candidate at Tier 2, and publicly swearing it off can help lift them — either way the money itself moves the rating (the money rule, below).

The money rule

Taking money from AIPAC, DMFI, or CUFI (major pro-Israel groups) since 2022 keeps a candidate at Tier 2, no matter how else they position themselves. Only publicly rejecting that money — plus a real record of withholding weapons — can lift them, and only to the edge of 3/4, never more critical on the money question alone.
Taking pro-Israel money is not leadership. It’s going along, not leading — so it never earns a Tier 1 rating on its own (§5).
Money spent for a candidate isn’t leadership either. Heavy outside spending on a candidate’s behalf — by AIPAC’s super PAC or crypto PACs — is other people backing them, not the candidate leading, so it doesn’t lift them to Tier 1. Adrian Boafo (MD-5) had roughly $12M in AIPAC and crypto money spent to help him win, and he’s still a flat 2 — none of it is his own leadership.

Still to decide — crypto-PAC money. The money rule currently counts only AIPAC, DMFI, and CUFI. Crypto-industry PACs (Fairshake, Protect Progress) are now spending in similar ways in several races. Open question: should that crypto money keep a candidate at Tier 2 the way the major pro-Israel PACs do, or stay separate? For now we note it in the candidate’s entry but don’t let it hold a candidate back.

What the endorsements mean

J Street — a mainstream liberal Zionist group. Its endorsement doesn’t move a candidate toward either pole: endorsees run all the way from Tier 1 to 4/5, its PAC money now flows mostly to candidates who vote to block offensive arms, and it has backed members who vote to cut even defensive arms (Khanna, García) and the author of the Block the Bombs Act (Ramirez). The one thing it marks is the outer edge: no J Street endorsee reaches Tier 5–6 — they stop short of a firm full embargo and of questioning Israel’s legitimacy, which is how a 4/5 can carry the logo. It does not tell you an endorsee backs the aid package, opposes BDS, or even affirms Israel as a Jewish state — García, a 4/5 J Street endorsee, cosponsored the right-of-return resolution. The record inside that range decides.
USCPR — only endorses candidates who meet a BDS standard, so the endorsement points to a strong record; we still rate the candidate on their own actions.
RJC (Republican Jewish Coalition) — a mainstream pro-Israel sign, not leadership.
JVP Action (Jewish Voice for Peace) — the anti-Zionist Jewish pole. It endorses only on an explicit anti-Zionist, BDS, arms-embargo and right-of-return standard, so the endorsement points to a Tier 5–6 record. Like USCPR it points; the candidate’s own words still set the tier.
If rival groups both claim a candidate, no single endorsement decides it — their own record does.

What none of them ask the United States to do. Every instrument this scale measures is non-violent — boycott, divestment and sanctions, arms embargoes, conditioning aid, cosponsorships, ceasefire resolutions. Each is a demand on US policy; none is a call to arms. Nothing in the record argues that a genocide cannot be ended non-violently.

That is a claim about instruments, not a claim that every group is pacifist — and the difference is worth stating exactly. JVP calls BDS “a principled, non-violent set of tactics led by Palestinian civil society.” It also holds, within what it calls an international rights framework, that “an occupied people have a right to resist, including the use of force” — while insisting that “the targeting of civilians is not permitted,” that “the indiscriminate killing of civilians — no matter by who — is always unacceptable,” and that Hamas’s October 7 massacre of Israeli civilians constituted “war crimes under international law.” That is a position on what international law permits an occupied people. It is not a tactic this roster scores.

The pro-Israel lobby’s instruments run the other way: its allies wrote the bill forcing arms delivery over a presidential pause (H.R.8369) and voted against the arms-block resolutions. The asymmetry is worth naming plainly — one side asks the United States to stop sending offensive weapons; the other asks it to send more, and prevails at supermajorities. The House restocked Iron Dome 420–9, passed the roughly $26 billion Israel supplemental 366–58, and voted 224–187 to force out the offensive munitions a president had paused; the most a Senate resolution to block any single Israeli arms sale has ever drawn is 27 of 100. And no member of Congress has ever proposed arming, or providing any means of defense to Hamas or any Palestinian in Gaza — the entire critical program is US non-participation, never equipping anyone. Source: JVP FAQ, “What is JVP’s position on Hamas’ actions on October 7, 2023?” (jewishvoiceforpeace.org).

4Evidence 3 — What they say

A candidate’s own public words — weighed below their voting record, but the main evidence for challengers who have no votes yet.

Calling it genocide

Using the word “genocide” for Gaza in one’s own voice is a real sign, pointing toward Tier 4. But the word alone doesn’t get a candidate past 3/4 without an actual step to withhold weapons.
Taking it back is penalized: softening “genocide” to “war crimes,” or retracting it, pulls the rating down.

Positions that don’t earn critical credit — and some that keep a candidate from reaching the critical end

Some stances are so common across the mainstream that, on their own, they earn a candidate no credit for being critical of Israel:

Criticizing Netanyahu or his government specifically
Framing the issue around Iran

Others go a step further: they show a candidate is still working inside a pro-Israel frame. They won’t by themselves make a candidate more pro-Israel, but they keep a candidate short of the critical end (Tiers 5–6) — they help keep a candidate out of Tiers 5–6, and can make even a Tier 4 a reach:

Supporting a two-state solution
Affirming Israel’s right to exist and to defend itself
Voting for pro-Israel antisemitism-definition bills (e.g. codifying the IHRA definition)

Concern for Palestinian civilians what separates a 2 from a 1/2

Concern for Palestinian civilians, expressed in their own words — saying aid must reach Gaza, naming civilian suffering — is what separates a flat Tier 2 from a firmer 1/2. What counts is a statement made without simultaneously invoking Israel’s need to defend itself. Note the verb: we record that a candidate expressed concern. We do not claim to know whether it is genuine.
Boilerplate doesn’t count. A generic line about “humanitarian aid” paired with a pledge to keep Israel armed is positioning, not concern. The Boafo test: “mobilize humanitarian aid for Palestinian civilians” said right alongside “ensure Israel has the security assistance it needs” is thin — a 1/2 is defensible.

Questioning Israel’s legitimacy Tier 5–6

The positions at the critical end of the scale challenge Israel’s legitimacy as a state: identifying as anti-Zionist, backing BDS by name, rejecting Israel as a Jewish state, or supporting the Palestinian right of return.
One such position on a thin record sits at 5/6 (Sairitupac, Huntley). A clean 6 needs one of these backed by real leadership or sustained activism, with no hedging (Orkin, Kawas). A candidate with otherwise strong positions who has also affirmed Israel as a Jewish state sits at 5/6 rather than a clean 6 (Omar).

Two cautions about words. Identifying as anti-Zionist does not by itself establish an anti-Zionist politics — a label can be worn loosely, and it is no substitute for a record. But in congressional politics it is a costly thing to say, and saying it moves the needle: it is one of the very few statements that can carry a candidate to Tier 6. The caution runs the other way too. Expressing concern for Palestinian civilians in humanitarian terms does not establish genuine concern for Palestinians as a people, nor any commitment to their rights — it is frequently the language of a candidate who intends to keep the weapons flowing. In both directions the words are evidence, not proof. Weigh them against the record.

5The far pro-Israel end — the leadership signal

Telling apart a clean 1, a 1/2, and a flat 2 comes down to two questions: does the candidate lead, and do they express any concern for Palestinian civilians?

Tier 1 is for leaders, not just reliable supporters. Reaching it takes more than voting a certain way and taking PAC money — the candidate has to lead, in one of these ways: writing Israel legislation themselves, running a marquee pro-Israel fundraising operation, building their brand on hardline rhetoric, or personally driving anti-BDS enforcement. We call this a leadership signal.
No leadership signal + no expressed concern for Palestinian civilians = 1/2.
No leadership signal + concern for Palestinian civilians expressed without invoking Israel’s need to defend itself = flat 2.
What is not leadership: taking pro-Israel money, having money spent on your behalf, voting reliably, co-sponsoring (as opposed to writing) a bill, or being endorsed. All of that is going along, not leading.

In short. A dependable pro-Israel voter who never leads and never expresses concern for Palestinian civilians is the textbook 1/2. Add genuine civilian concern and they become a flat 2; add real leadership and they become a 1.

How far this end actually goes. Tier 1 is not only reliable support — at its edge it is the open erasure of Palestinians as civilians, stated on the record. Rep. Brian Mast (FL-21) told the House floor not to “so lightly throw around the idea of innocent Palestinian civilians,” likening the phrase to “innocent Nazi civilians,” and said there are “very few innocent Palestinian civilians” (Congressional Record, Nov 1, 2023). Sen. Lindsey Graham: “Level the place.” Sen. Tom Cotton: Israel “can bounce the rubble in Gaza,” and Palestine is “a made-up fiction.” Rep. Randy Fine invoked Hiroshima and told Gaza to “starve away.” This is the very “no such thing as a civilian” claim that hostile outlets once falsely pinned on a DSA working group — real, verified, and sitting at the opposite pole. It is worth holding against the most-critical end below, where the furthest anyone goes is a right to resist that forbids attacking civilians in the same breath. The discrepancy is the point: one pole qualifies even the principle of resistance; the other enacts maximal force into law.

6The most-critical end (5 vs 6)

Tier 5 requires a firm, consistent stance — a full weapons embargo including defensive systems, or cutting off all aid. Wavering counts against a candidate; a late conversion counts for less than a long record; funding missile defense during the genocide generally rules out Tier 5.
Tier 6 requires questioning Israel’s legitimacy as a state (§4) — something beyond an embargo and the word “genocide,” which are Tier 4–5 territory on their own.
Being endorsed by the most critical members of Congress (Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez) doesn’t by itself prove a Tier 5 — those figures are around 4/5 themselves.

Tier 6 is harder still — and the most-critical end runs well past electoral politics. Even the most critical figures in American politics are surpassed by the scholars and organizers who have carried this movement from outside electoral life. That fuller position tends to name itself anti-Zionist plainly; to treat BDS as one tactic among many rather than the whole of resistance; to center justice, return, and decolonization rather than offering “coexistence” or a two-state endgame as the primary frame; and to insist on the right of return and an honest reckoning with 1948. Measured against that horizon, even the strongest candidates here — those backing a complete embargo, naming the genocide without hedging, and affirming Palestinian return — represent the leading edge of what is currently sayable in American electoral politics, which remains far behind the movement it trails.

A register the candidates don’t reach. The vocabulary just named — anti-Zionism by name, decolonization, return, a reckoning with 1948 — is the movement’s, and it lives in the organizations (USCPR, AJP / AMP, JVP) far more than in any candidate’s mouth. Across this roster essentially no candidate rationale uses “colonial” or “decolonization”; the lone clear exception is Melat Kiros, who called Israel’s founding “by globally recognized definitions, colonialism.” Even Tier 6 candidates reach for “genocide,” “apartheid,” and “occupation” — a full register below the groups that endorse them. It is one more measure of how far electoral speech trails the movement it follows.

7When the evidence conflicts

When the three kinds of evidence disagree, we trust them roughly in this order:

1. What they’ve done in office — votes, sponsorships, bills they wrote. Strongest and hardest to fake.
2. What they say in their own words — pledges, debate answers. The main evidence for challengers.
3. Endorsements — they color the picture but never set a rating alone.
4. Money taken, or spent for them — can hold a rating down (the money rule), but isn’t a rating on its own.

The record beats the label. When a candidate’s own actions go further than the group endorsing them, their actions win. Delia Ramirez is endorsed by J Street but rates a Tier 4 on her own record — she wrote the Block the Bombs Act.

8Split ratings

A candidate whose record genuinely sits between two levels gets a split (like 3/4) — usually a step toward limiting weapons (the higher number) held back by more supportive positions (the lower number). We write the lower number first, and both count in the totals.
Adelita Grijalva is 3/4: she co-sponsored Block the Bombs and used the word “genocide” (the reach toward 4), but frames her goal around a two-state solution, humanitarian aid, and hostage release, and had a mainstream record before Congress (the pull back to 3).

9The computed base grade

Alongside the hand-set tier, every member with a voting record also gets a computed Base grade (1–10) — the reproducible layer, shown as a sortable column on the roster. It scores the voting record on the weighted catalog, minus the funding drag, to set a Tier 1–4 anchor; the final tier then adds the judgment layer — toward the critical end for the legitimacy-line stance (BDS, anti-Zionist identity, right of return) and, more mildly, for expressed concern for Palestinian civilians (what moves a 1/2 to a flat 2); toward the pro-Israel end for frame-keeping (Iron Dome support, affirming Israel’s right to exist) and candor problems. Funding doesn’t just subtract — AIPAC/DMFI money holds the tier at 2.

Reading the grade. n is how many vote & funding records stand behind it (roll calls cast, cosponsorships, pro-Israel money, gap-catalog votes); the roster greys the number when n is small and darkens it as it grows, so a grade resting on two records never looks as certain as one built from a decade of votes — the score itself is unchanged, only how confidently it’s shown. The % beside it is the share of the member’s weighted votes that fell on the Palestinian side (consistency): Lateefah Simon reads 7.2 · n4 · 100% — a strong, perfectly consistent record, greyed because only four signals back it, while Rashida Tlaib’s 10 · n17 rests on seventeen.

How each base became the tier

These twenty are the original hand calibration that tuned the weights — the base shown is the hand grade the model is fit to. They illustrate the toward-either-pole adjustment logic that turns a base grade into the final tier.

Tlaib (10 → 6), Omar (10 → 5/6), Summer Lee (10 → 5) — maxed base (embargo-consistent, voted to strip Iron Dome), then the legitimacy stance pushes them into 5–6. Omar sits a notch under Tlaib for a 2023 “Jewish and democratic state” hedge — a defensive concession co-sponsored while she faced removal from the Foreign Affairs Committee, which did not prevent her ouster and which she said changed none of her positions.
Khanna (8 → 4/5) — a conditioning record past two cosponsorships (authored a settlements resolution, own-voice genocide) pushes past 4 toward 5, short of the full stance.
Ramirez (10 → 4), Pressley (9 → 4), Carson (8 → 4), Jayapal (8.5 → 4), Balint (7 → 4) — strong bases that land at 4; no legitimacy stance to push past it. Pressley holds at a flat 4 because her arms stance is offensive-only and she calls for no full embargo.
Merkley (9 → 3/4), Markey (8 → 3/4), Luján (7 → 3/4) — strong Senate arms-block bases pulled back by frame-keeping: they fund Iron Dome, affirm Israel’s right to exist, emphasize two states.
Ossoff (5 → 3) — real but discriminating arms-block votes (only the most defensible sales); AIPAC actually spent against him, so no funding drag.
Sylvia Garcia (4 → 2/3) — a Block-the-Bombs cosponsor, but a 2026 signer who took AIPAC money in past cycles and a J Street trip; the money keeps her at 2/3.
Booker (3 → 2) — the clearest case of money holding a tier: ~$871k in pro-Israel money and an AIPAC favorite, so even his first-ever 2026 arms-block votes can’t move him past 2 yet.
Coons (2 → 2), Meeks (1.5 → 2), Norcross (1 → 2) — reliable pro-aid records; DMFI/AIPAC money keeps them at 2. Not a clean Tier 1 only because none is a maximalist leader.
Frankel (0.5 → 1), Sherman (0.5 → 1) — not just pro-Israel voters but leaders: Sherman co-chairs the Israel Allies Caucus; Frankel crossed the aisle to force arms delivery. That leadership is the Tier 1 signal money alone can’t buy.

The candor rule. The judgment layer docks for hedging and audience-shifting, no more than a half-step. AOC isn’t on this list, but she’s the reference case: her base is mixed (she voted to preserve Iron Dome), and her presidential-positioning hedge is exactly the half-step toward the pro-Israel end that keeps her a strong 4 rather than a 4/5.

How the base tracks the outside metrics. The base correlates tightly with USCPR (both discriminate on conditioning conduct) and IMEU, and loosely with AJP — AJP’s within-chamber curve inflates mainstream liberals, so a Sylvia Garcia grades B on AJP while sitting at a 4 base. GovTrack (general left–right) barely tracks at all — proof that overall ideology doesn’t predict the Israel position. Base grades are a first calibration, meant to be adjusted, with the weights tuned so the column reproduces the tiers we already trust.

10Who’s included, and how current this is

Who’s tracked: candidates who have taken a documented position on Palestine and Israel, or who have been targeted by the pro-Israel or Palestinian-rights money and endorsement networks we follow. A candidate’s absence is a choice about scope, not a verdict on them.
How current: money totals, endorsements, vote counts, and race statuses are accurate as of the date at the top and change as the election proceeds.
Why the scale leans one way: the pro-Israel side of U.S. politics is more organized and better funded, so there is simply more of it to document. That imbalance reflects the landscape, not the project’s sympathies.

Open questions we’re still working through.

Whether crypto-PAC money should keep a candidate at Tier 2 (§3).
How much a promise to vote a certain way (versus an actual vote) should count — e.g. a pledge to strip all military financing, which would go further than the offensive-weapons-only records we currently rate at Tier 4.

These rules are guides, not verdicts. Every rating is a documented judgment written out in the candidate’s entry, and any rule here can change as the record and the election develop. This page is a companion to the roster.