Unpacking the Jewish Political Space: The 4 Square Model

I believe our community is now operating through four ideological policy camps: the Far Right and the Far Left, along with the Center Right and the Center Left. Employing the two central issues facing America’s Jews, Israel/Zionism and Antisemitism, I have constructed this evaluative model.

Labeling the numerous organizations and placing them into their respective spaces, based on their Zionist credentials and antisemitism alignment (identified with a specific definition), is of course problematic. Obviously, introducing other “policy items” will no doubt change the positioning of some of these institutions. I take responsibility for possibly mislabeling some of the 40 organizations that have been examined, with many more to be inputted. For purposes of this article, only some of the organizations included in this study are referenced.

Assigning an organization to an “Ideological Camp” applies only where an organization regularly takes public-policy positions in connection with these two overarching themes reflecting a particular stance or viewpoint.  There are numerous organizations that can be defined as “Non-Combatants” meaning such groups can be identified as primarily operating in other “neutral” policy or content areas, such as religious, social service, philanthropic, educational, security or health, and only on occasion may address one or both of these issues.

Where Zionist, non-Zionist, and anti-Zionist Fit?

 “Zionist” is not synonymous with right-wing. ZOA (Zionist Organization of America) and J Street are both “Zionist” but the former emphasizes sovereignty, security, and the legitimacy of the existing Jewish state, while the latter emphasizes democracy, Palestinian statehood, and opposition to occupation.

“Non-Zionist” describes abstention or decentering, not necessarily opposition. Some Haredi groups, service agencies, and progressive organizers avoid making Zionism the organizing principle of Jewish life for very different theological or political reasons. IfNotNow is most accurately placed in this plural zone, even as parts of its activist base employ anti-Zionist language.

AJC, AIPAC, JFNA, and ADL, among other organizations, occupy the large institutional Zionist center.

“Anti-Zionist” means opposition to Zionism as a political project or to Jewish statehood in its present ethnonational form. JVP (Jewish Voice for Peace) explicitly claims this position. Most IHRA-oriented groups believe anti-Zionism frequently or inherently denies Jews a right granted to other peoples; JVP and allied groups argue that opposition to a state ideology is not hostility to Jews. Nexus and the Jerusalem Declaration occupy an intermediate analytical position: anti-Zionism is not automatically antisemitic, but it can become antisemitic when it uses anti-Jewish tropes, collective blame, discrimination, or violence.

Assessing Communal Responses to Antisemitism:

When studying the “treatment” by various organizations of antisemitism, a different set of criteria was employed. Here, three evaluative questions were introduced:

The Measures of Antisemitism: What constitutes anti-Jewish or anti-Israel expressions and behaviors, as offered by the three primary definitional models of antisemitism?

The Tools of Engagement: How institutions address the problem of antisemitism, identifying approaches/strategies/tactics?

Effectiveness Scale: How are organizations evaluating their work product/performance?

Finding Common Ground:

The four ideological camps are unlikely to agree on a single Israel/antisemitism doctrine. They can nevertheless cooperate when the objective is concrete and viewpoint-neutral:

• Physical Safety and Hate-Crime Response: It may be possible to secure consensus involving the protection of synagogues, schools, and public gatherings involving Jews; condemnation of assault, vandalism, threats, Holocaust denial, and classic conspiracy tropes.
• Religious Liberty and Accommodation: Access to kosher food, Sabbath and holiday accommodation, prison and military chaplaincy, zoning for houses of worship, and protection of Jewish dress will likely draw greater consensus. But will there be consensus on ensuring that liberal Jewish religious communities and congregations are afforded the same equal status and security in Israel as provided to traditional Jewish groups?
• Hostages, Civilian Life, and Negotiated De-Escalation: While the language will differ, hostage release, humanitarian access, and durable cessation of mass violence might produce overlapping support.
• Democratic Pluralism: Broad coalitions have formed against attacks on courts, universities, due process, and democratic norms, though right-aligned organizations may not join when the Trump Administration is the target.
• Immigrant and Refugee Protection: This proposition would likely unite center-left and left organizations and certain federations/selective denominational bodies but usually excludes the Trump-aligned right.
• A Speech-and-Safety Compact: This maybe the most promising bridge and would condemn threats, harassment, and discriminatory exclusion while protecting peaceful advocacy—including criticism of Israel or Zionism—from violent threats and possible harassment.

Examples of Current Intra-Camp Coalescing:

Right: Republican Jewish Coalition functions as the partisan hub linking Jewish conservatives and Republican officeholders. ZOA has assembled pro-IHRA and campus-enforcement coalitions in defense of Israel, while CJV (Coalition for Jewish Values) connects Orthodox social conservatism with pro-Israel advocacy. Other organizations that are identified with this ideological sector include Betar US, Americans for a Safe Israel, Religious Zionists of America, and American Friends of Likud.

Institutional Center-Right: AJC, ADL, the Conference of Presidents, JFNA, Hadassah, and StandWithUs have coalesced around fighting campus antisemitism, advancing pro-Israel education, and demanding institutional accountability following incidents of antisemitic expression and action.

Center-Left: JCPA (Jewish Council for Public Affairs) has convened more than 100 Jewish organizations around democratic norms; 88 Jewish organizations opposed mass deportation in January 2025; J Street, NYJA (New York Jewish Agenda), the New Israel Fund, NCJW (National Council of Jewish Women), URJ/RAC (Union for Reform Judaism/Religious Action Center), T’ruah, and HIAS (Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, among others, can be classified as part of this ideological group.

Far Left: JVP (Jewish Voice for Peace) supplies the clearest national anti-Zionist infrastructure; IfNotNow, JREJ (Jews for Racial and Economic Justice), Bend the Arc chapters, and local progressive Jewish groups have coalesced around ceasefire, deportation defense, campus protest rights, and engagement with Mamdani. Their joint criticism of ADL’s Mamdani Monitor demonstrated a distinct progressive Jewish bloc.

Other organizations in this camp, who may hold different views on related policy areas, include Satmar, Jewish Labor Bund, and the International Jewish anti-Zionist Network.

 Bottom Line:

The four-camp model is most accurate when taking into account these two primary indicators. First, when isolating Zionism as an independent variable, one can be far-right Zionist, centrist Zionist, liberal Zionist, non-Zionist, or anti-Zionist. The second marker involves the fight over how one defines antisemitism, which in reality is a fight over institutional power and position, and not whether hatred and violence against Jews are wrong. Durable collaboration is therefore most likely through concrete projects, not a forced consensus on Zionism or around defining antisemitism.

The organizing proposition behind this initiative is to determine where there might be ideological cross-over, allowing organizations such as those identified as part of the Center Right axis to work with their institutional counterparts within the Center Left camp. In moving beyond the two ideological frameworks of Zionism and antisemitism, is it possible to posit that institutions who share other core interests and priorities might be able to coalesce?