← back to the roster
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, what they say, and who funds and endorses them.
A short guide to the method · as of October 22, 2026
The six-point scale
The scale measures how far a candidate is willing to pull back support for Israel — not a plan for Palestinians, which almost no one in U.S. elections runs on.
1Firmly pro-IsraelUnqualified, active support. Reaching this level takes leadership, not just reliability.
2Reliably pro-IsraelDependable support without leading on it.
3Supportive but criticalStill backs Israel, but criticizes how it is fighting, or takes a single step toward limiting weapons.
4Critical, but still within support for IsraelA real record of trying to withhold offensive weapons, short of a full arms embargo.
5Breaks with the pro-Israel consensusBacks a full weapons embargo, defensive systems included, or cutting off all aid — firmly and consistently.
6Questions Israel’s legitimacy as a stateChallenges whether Israel should exist as a Jewish state — identifying as anti-Zionist, backing BDS by name, or supporting the Palestinian right of return — with a real record and no hedging.
- Split ratings like 3/4 mark a record that genuinely sits between two tiers.
- NR (not rated) means no public position has been found yet — not that the candidate is neutral.
What we look at
- How they vote — votes and bill sponsorships specific to Israel and Gaza, from the official congressional record; broad spending bills that bundle Israel aid with everything else count for little. What a candidate does in office counts for more than what they say they’ll do.
- What they say — their own public words: speeches, posts, platforms, debate answers. The main evidence for challengers, who have no votes yet.
- Who funds and endorses them — from campaign-finance filings and the endorsers’ own lists.
- Lebanon, too — votes and statements on Israel’s war in Lebanon count the same way as those on Gaza.
What weighs most
- Pro-Israel lobby money weighs heavily — recent money most of all. Money spent to defeat a candidate never counts against them. On October 21, 2026, AIPAC told its members it would stop endorsing candidates, giving through its PAC and earmarking donations, and would encourage its members to give to candidates directly; its super PAC, the United Democracy Project, continues. The endorsements and money already on the roster for 2026 stand as recorded, but gifts AIPAC members make on their own from then on are no longer marked as AIPAC’s in FEC filings.
- Some common positions earn no critical credit. Criticizing Netanyahu or his government isn’t, on its own, criticism of Israel. Backing a two-state solution, or Israel’s right to exist and defend itself, marks a candidate still working inside a pro-Israel frame.
- Endorsements are signs, not verdicts. Gaining or losing one never changes a rating by itself.
Ratings are judgments
None of this is a formula. A candidate’s full record can override any general rule, and many ratings turn on details no general rule anticipates. Every rating is written out on the candidate’s entry, under Why this tier, so it can be checked, argued with, and revised as the record changes.
Who’s included
- 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 — plus, in every race the roster covers, the other candidates on the November ballot: major-party nominees whether or not they have a position (NR if not), and minor-party and independent candidates who have one. A candidate’s absence is a choice about scope, not a verdict on them.
- How current: money, endorsements, votes and race statuses are current to the date on the roster, and change as the election goes on.