Appendix 2

Antisemitism in Press Releases: A Comparative Analysis of Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Jewish Discourse in the United States

As a complementary study to the one on sermons, we have analyzed the discourse on antisemitism, immigration, and LGBTQ+ issues within the major Jewish religious movements in the United States – Reform, Conservative, and Modern Orthodox – through an analysis of press releases published over the past decade. Press releases serve as an official channel through which religious institutions articulate their positions on key social, political, and communal issues, making them a valuable resource for understanding how different Jewish movements frame and respond to contemporary antisemitism.

To systematically assess these perspectives, we compiled and analyzed 1,441 press releases from the past ten years, distributed as follows:

• Reform Movement: 775 press releases (Union for Reform Judaism and Religious Action Center for Reform Judaism – RAC).

• Conservative Movement: 190 press releases (United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism – USCJ and Rabbinical Assembly).

• Modern Orthodox Movement: 425 press releases (Orthodox Union – OU Advocacy).

Methodology

To conduct this study, we utilized web scraping techniques to systematically collect press releases published over the past decade by the major Jewish religious movements in the United States.

The first stage of analysis focused on identifying press releases that explicitly addressed antisemitism. To do so, we conducted a keyword-based search identical to the one conducted with the sermons using terms such as “Antisemitism,” “Antisemitic,” and “Anti-Semitism.” This process resulted in a dataset of 210 press releases that mentioned antisemitism in some form.

Once the relevant materials were identified, we turned to the question of attribution – how each movement defined and contextualized antisemitism in its discourse. To systematically assess this, we employed AI-based text analysis using ChatGPT. The model was instructed to determine whether antisemitism in a given press release was attributed to right-wing sources, left-wing sources, or both, based on predefined criteria. Right-wing antisemitism was categorized as including white supremacist ideologies, neo-Nazism, and broader racial supremacist movements, while left-wing antisemitism was defined as emerging primarily from anti-Israel rhetoric, BDS activism, and campus-based hostility toward Zionism.

To refine the accuracy of this classification process, a few-shot learning approach was used, in which the AI model was provided with multiple labeled examples before analyzing the full dataset. However, because automated text classification can sometimes struggle with contextual nuances, all AI-generated attributions were manually reviewed to ensure consistency and reliability.

The final dataset underscored significant differences in each movement’s attribution of antisemitism. Among the press releases analyzed, a considerable proportion engaged directly with the question of ideological origins. Orthodox organizations attributed antisemitism to either right-wing or left-wing sources in 33 press releases, while the Reform movement made similar attributions in 41 instances. The Conservative movement, by contrast, engaged with this issue less frequently, with only 13 press releases explicitly linking antisemitism to a specific ideological source. Notably, a substantial number of publications across all three movements discussed antisemitism in broader terms, without pinpointing a particular political or ideological origin.

Through this methodological approach, we were able to construct a comparative framework that highlights significant differences in how the Reform, Conservative, and Modern Orthodox movements engage with the issue of antisemitism in their public discourse. These findings provide insight into the ideological and political priorities of each movement and their evolving responses to one of the most pressing challenges facing Jewish communities today.

To assess how these movements engaged with LGBTQ+ and immigration issues, we conducted a similar keyword-based search, identifying press releases that included terms commonly associated with these topics.

For immigration, we searched for words such as: “immigrant, refugee, asylum seeker, visa holder, undocumented, permanent resident, displaced person.” For LGBTQ issues, we looked for terms including: “LGBTQ, queer, transgender, nonbinary, same-sex marriage, gender rights, conversion therapy, pride, sexual orientation.” If a press release contained at least one of these words, it was included in our analysis.

Once we identified the relevant documents, we examined how frequently each movement addressed these topics over time. Instead of relying on raw numbers – which could be skewed by differences in publication rates – we calculated the percentage of total press releases per year that referenced immigration or LGBTQ+ issues. This allowed us to visualize trends, highlighting which movements were most engaged, how their focus shifted over time, and whether their attention to these issues was consistent or reactive to political events. Through this comparative framework, we were able to assess patterns of public engagement, revealing how different Jewish movements prioritize and frame major social and political issues in their discourse.

Findings

Antisemitism: Perspectives from the Right and the Left

The graph presents a striking comparison of how antisemitism is attributed by the three major Jewish movements – Orthodox Union (OU), United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism (USCJ), and Union of Reform Judaism (URJ) – revealing significant ideological differences in their framing of the issue. Each movement exhibits a clear tendency to emphasize particular sources of antisemitism, reflecting broader political and communal concerns.

The OU overwhelmingly attributes antisemitism to the left, with 76% of its press releases identifying left-wing sources as the primary drivers of antisemitic rhetoric and actions. This aligns with a narrative that views anti-Zionism, BDS activism, and hostility toward Israel on college campuses as central to contemporary antisemitism. Only 18% of Orthodox press releases attribute antisemitism exclusively to the right, and an even smaller fraction (6%) acknowledges that it originates from both political extremes. This pattern underscores a broader orientation within Orthodox discourse, where antisemitism is frequently discussed in connection with threats to Zionism and Jewish statehood rather than the racial or white supremacist ideologies typically associated with the far right.

By contrast, the Reform and Conservative movements present a near mirror image of this trend, with 78% and 77% of their respective press releases attributing antisemitism primarily to right-wing sources. These movements frame antisemitism predominantly through the lens of rising white nationalism, neo-Nazism, and far-right extremism, which they perceive as the most immediate and dangerous threats facing Jewish communities. The relatively smaller percentages of Reform (15%) and Conservative (15%) press releases that link antisemitism to the left suggest that while these movements recognize anti-Zionist and left-wing hostility toward Jews, they do not consider it as pressing or widespread as the dangers emanating from right-wing ideology.

Interestingly, all three movements allocate only a small proportion of their discourse to acknowledging antisemitism as a phenomenon that emerges from both sides. Orthodox press releases recognize this dual threat in just 6% of cases, while the Reform and Conservative movements do so at slightly higher rates, 7% and 8%, respectively. This suggests that, while some within each movement acknowledge antisemitism as a multifaceted issue that transcends political divisions, the dominant narratives tend to frame it as primarily stemming from a single ideological extreme.

These findings illuminate a deep divide in how antisemitism is understood and communicated across different segments of American Jewry. The OU’s emphasis on left-wing antisemitism reflects its prioritization of threats to Israel and Zionism, while the Reform and Conservative movements, which traditionally align with more progressive political values, focus on the dangers of right-wing extremism. This divergence has far-reaching implications, shaping not only the advocacy strategies and communal priorities of each movement but also influencing the potential for cross-denominational collaboration in confronting antisemitism. In emphasizing different sources of antisemitic threats, the three movements may at times find themselves at odds in determining which issues demand the most urgent response, complicating broader efforts to forge a unified Jewish communal strategy against antisemitism.

Mentions of “White Supremacy” and “Antisemitism”

The next two graphs provide a comparative analysis of the frequency of engagement of different Jewish movements – Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox – with the terms “white supremacy” and “antisemitism” in their press releases over the past decade.

Mentions of “White Supremacy”

This graph tracks the percentage of articles mentioning “white supremacy” across the three denominations.

As expected, the URJ (dark blue) and USCJ (light blue) have consistently referenced white supremacy more frequently than the Orthodox Union (green), reinforcing the trend that these movements view right-wing extremism as a central driver of contemporary antisemitism.

A notable outlier occurs in 2017, when the Conservative movement shows a sharp spike, seemingly surpassing both Reform and Orthodox movements in references to white supremacy. However, this anomaly is likely because only seven press releases were issued by the Conservative movement in that year, making the percentage appear disproportionately high. Beyond this irregularity, the data indicates a steady increase in references to white supremacy by the Reform movement, peaking around 2022 before declining.

Meanwhile, the Modern Orthodox movement makes minimal mention of white supremacy throughout the period, with only a modest uptick around 2021–2022. This further supports the broader observation that Modern Orthodox discourse is generally less focused on right-wing extremism and more concerned with left-wing antisemitism or issues tied to anti-Zionism.

Mentions of “Antisemitism”

This next graph illustrates the percentage of press releases that mention “antisemitism” across the same period. Unlike the previous graph, which showed a stark divide between movements, this graph reveals a more universal increase in references to antisemitism over the last decade. However, significant differences emerge in the rate of that increase, particularly in recent years.

Between 2014 and 2020, all three denominations followed a similar pattern, with relatively low and fluctuating mentions of antisemitism. However, beginning in 2021 and accelerating after 2023, Orthodox discourse on antisemitism intensified substantially. This period coincides with a global increase in anti-Israel activism, rising hostility on university campuses, the mainstreaming of BDS rhetoric, and violent antisemitic attacks in major Western cities. The data suggests that Orthodox institutions have responded to these developments by dramatically increasing their focus on antisemitism as a central concern.

By contrast, while Reform and Conservative discourse on antisemitism has increased over time, it has remained more moderate and did not rise significantly during the war, suggesting a different set of priorities. Although these movements acknowledge the overall rise in antisemitism, they continue to frame it predominantly in terms of right-wing threats, even as antisemitism linked to anti-Zionism has intensified. As a result, their discourse on antisemitism remained relatively limited during the war.

Mentions of Immigration

The way Jewish religious movements engage with immigration issues tells us a great deal about their political, ethical, and communal priorities. Looking at the following graph, which tracks the yearly percentage of press releases mentioning immigration-related terms from 2014 to 2024, a clear trend emerges: Jewish movements do not address immigration with the same frequency, nor do they place equal emphasis on it in their public discourse.

This strong engagement is not incidental; rather, it reflects the Reform movement’s long-standing alignment with progressive social justice causes. Immigration is framed not just as a political issue but as a moral imperative, deeply rooted in Jewish ethical teachings on welcoming the stranger. Even in years when public attention to immigration declined, the Reform movement continued to address the issue, reinforcing its role as a leading Jewish voice in advocating for immigrant rights.

Given the Reform movement’s active engagement, one might expect the Conservative movement to act as a bridge between Reform and Orthodox positions, balancing religious tradition with modern ethical concerns. However, the data tells a different story – Conservative Judaism actually engages very little with immigration issues overall. While there are peaks in 2017 and 2022, these do not indicate sustained engagement. Instead, they suggest a reactive rather than proactive approach – the movement addresses immigration when it becomes an unavoidable public issue but does not consistently advocate for it. After 2017, engagement levels drop to nearly negligible levels, demonstrating that immigration is not a core focus of Conservative Jewish public discourse. Rather than serving as a middle ground between Reform and Orthodoxy, the Conservative movement’s low level of engagement places it much closer to the Orthodox pattern of minimal engagement.

This brings us to the Orthodox movement, which exhibits the lowest level of engagement with immigration-related issues. Throughout the decade, Orthodox press releases rarely mention immigration, with only small increases in 2018 and 2022. These modest spikes may be linked to specific events, such as the family separation crisis in 2018 and the refugee crises in Afghanistan and Ukraine in 2022. However, these moments of engagement remain limited and situational, rather than reflecting an ongoing commitment to immigration discourse.

Jewish institutions are often viewed as active participants in public debates on moral and political issues. Yet, this data highlights a deep divide in how different movements prioritize immigration. Reform Judaism treats it as a key social justice concern, while Conservative and Orthodox movements largely refrain from sustained advocacy on the topic.

While it is expected that Orthodox organizations would engage minimally with immigration, what stands out most in this analysis is the low level of engagement from the Conservative Movement as well. Although theologically more progressive than Orthodoxy, Conservative Judaism does not translate that stance into a sustained public discourse on immigration.

Ultimately, this challenges the assumption that the Conservative Movement serves as a balanced middle ground between Reform and Orthodox Judaism. Instead, when it comes to immigration, the data positions the movement much closer to Orthodoxy, reflecting a limited and inconsistent level of engagement that contrasts sharply with the Reform Movement’s proactive and sustained advocacy.

Mentions of LGBTQ+

The question of LGBTQ+ inclusion, rights, and advocacy has been a central issue in American public discourse over the past decade. Within Jewish religious movements, responses to LGBTQ+ concerns reflect deeper ideological and theological commitments – some emphasizing inclusivity and social justice, while others approach the topic with religious caution or silence.

This graph, which tracks the yearly percentage of press releases mentioning LGBTQ-related terms across Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox Jewish denominations from 2014 to 2024, tells a compelling story: engagement is not equal across movements, nor is it consistent over time.

From 2014 to 2024, the Reform movement’s engagement with LGBTQ+ issues remains steady and sustained, with noticeable peaks in 2018 and 2022. These increases correspond to major national debates on LGBTQ+ rights, including policies affecting transgender military service, legal battles over religious exemptions, and state-level laws restricting LGBTQ+ rights in schools.

This high level of engagement is unsurprising – Reform Judaism has long positioned itself as an advocate for inclusivity and social justice, viewing LGBTQ+ rights as a Jewish ethical imperative rather than merely a political issue. Whether celebrating victories like same-sex marriage equality in 2015 or speaking out against anti-trans legislation in 2022, Reform leaders consistently frame their stance as an extension of Jewish values, emphasizing the inherent dignity of every individual and the duty to fight for marginalized communities. Even when public discourse on LGBTQ+ issues quiets down, the Reform movement does not retreat. Instead, it remains proactive, ensuring that LGBTQ+ inclusion is not just a reaction to legal battles but an ongoing commitment within Jewish communal life.

By contrast, the Conservative movement demonstrates a much lower level of engagement. Although often positioned as a middle ground between Reform and Orthodox Judaism, Conservative Judaism does not maintain a sustained public discourse on LGBTQ+ issues. This pattern mirrors its approach to immigration discourse – while the movement occasionally engages with social justice issues, it does not consistently prioritize them in its press releases. Instead, its engagement is minimal, intermittent, and largely dependent on external political developments.

Similarly, the Orthodox movement remains entirely absent from public discourse on LGBTQ+ issues. Over the ten-year span of this analysis, its engagement is non-existent. This reflects the Orthodox community’s fundamentally different approach to LGBTQ+ concerns, shaped by halachic (Jewish legal) considerations. While individual Orthodox rabbis and communities have debated how to approach LGBTQ+ inclusion, the Orthodox Union as an institution has largely avoided engaging in public advocacy on LGBTQ+ rights.

While the Orthodox movement’s lack of engagement is expected, given its religious framework, what stands out in this analysis is the Conservative movement’s silence on LGBTQ issues. As its theological stance allows for greater flexibility, one might expect stronger engagement on LGBTQ+ concerns. However, the data suggests that institutionally, the Conservative movement has largely chosen to avoid LGBTQ+ advocacy.