How have progressive and Palestinian-rights organizations rated members of Congress on Israel-related votes during 2023–2025, and what criteria did they use?
Executive summary
Progressive and Palestinian-rights groups produced public scorecards from 2023–2025 that rate Members of Congress chiefly on roll-call votes, cosponsored legislation, authored or signed letters, and public advocacy; prominent examples include US Campaign for Palestinian Rights Action (USCPR Action), Americans for Justice in Palestine Action (AJP Action), and the IMEU Policy Project, each of which published methodologies and score lists covering the 118th Congress and prior relevant actions [1] [2] [3] [4]. Those groups relied on the Congressional roll-call universe identified by the Congressional Research Service—bills, amendments, and resolutions that referenced Israel or Hamas and were introduced or amended after October 7, 2023—to define which votes mattered, and they supplemented that with letters, sponsorships, and public statements [5] [6] [1].
1. How the scorecards define the universe of “Israel-related” actions
Advocacy scorecards drew heavily on the set of votes and measures that institutional trackers and CRS cataloged after the October 7, 2023 attack—legislation, amendments, and procedural votes that explicitly referenced Israel, Hamas, or the Gaza conflict—so that roll calls cited by CRS and compiled on Congress.gov became the backbone of most ratings [5] [6]. Palestinian-rights groups then layered on additional categories not always captured in CRS tables—dear-colleague letters, sponsorship of ceasefire or humanitarian bills, and public calls for UNRWA funding or a ceasefire—expanding the metrics beyond simple yea/no roll-call tallies [2] [4].
2. What behaviors and positions these groups rewarded or penalized
USCPR Action and sister organizations explicitly rewarded congressional actions that called for a ceasefire, restored humanitarian funding (for example to UNRWA), restricted U.S. military assistance linked to rights abuses, or publicly condemned Israeli operations seen as collective punishment; they tallied both votes and legislative initiatives to create 118th‑Congress grades and lifetime grades covering 2023–2025 [2] [1] [4]. AJP Action’s scorecard likewise weighed letters and legislation and even penalized members for actions seen as alignment with pro-Israel institutional influence—AJP’s public methodology states it penalizes members for speaking at AIPAC, for example—signaling that public forum choices and perceived establishment ties factored into scores [3].
3. Methodological transparency and differences between groups
USCPR Action published a methodology that claims a “thorough assessment” of votes, letters, and other legislative action and distinguishes 118th-Congress grades from lifetime grades, explicitly noting the inclusion of actions prior to 2023 in lifetime tallies [1]. IMEU’s House scorecard is selective, describing itself as cataloging a selection of “positive actions” taken for Palestinian rights and noting that absence from its list could mean a member simply did not support selected actions—an admission of selection bias in what counts as creditable behavior [4]. AJP’s approach is explicitly comparative and punitive toward perceived establishment gestures, reflecting divergent priorities across organizations about what constitutes principled behavior [3].
4. Political context, incentives, and hidden agendas the scorecards identify
USCPR Action’s methodology foregrounds the role of contributions and external lobbying, asserting that pro-Israel donors are a powerful single-issue sector that influenced votes after October 2023 and that more pro-Israel members received substantially more pro-Israel donor money on average than pro‑Palestine members—an argument used to explain congressional voting patterns and to justify penalizing members who align with pro-Israel institutional positions [1]. Academic and media reporting documents that pro-Israel groups have been active in primaries and fundraising around Israel-related votes, underscoring why advocacy groups add penalties for public appearances and donor-aligned behavior [7].
5. Limits, contestation, and alternative readings
These scorecards are political instruments: methodologies vary, selection of “relevant” actions differs across groups, and some measures (like penalizing speaking at AIPAC) reflect normative judgments not universally accepted; institutional trackers such as CRS provide the raw vote universe but do not assign normative scores, leaving interpretation to advocacy groups [5] [6] [1]. Public-opinion shifts documented by polling and commentary pieces show a broader political environment in which both bipartisan resolutions and sharp intraparty divides shaped what actions organizations chose to score—context that modulates but does not determine methodology choices [8] [9] [10].