🔗 Share this article

Two years have passed since that horrific attack of the events of October 7th, which shook world Jewry more than any event following the creation of Israel as a nation.

For Jews it was deeply traumatic. For Israel as a nation, it was deeply humiliating. The whole Zionist project was founded on the assumption which held that the nation could stop such atrocities from ever happening again.

Some form of retaliation seemed necessary. Yet the chosen course undertaken by Israel – the widespread destruction of the Gaza Strip, the killing and maiming of tens of thousands non-combatants – was a choice. This particular approach made more difficult how many Jewish Americans understood the attack that triggered it, and currently challenges the community's commemoration of that date. How does one honor and reflect on a horrific event against your people while simultaneously devastation done to other individuals connected to their community?

The Complexity of Mourning

The challenge in grieving exists because of the circumstance where no agreement exists as to the implications of these developments. Indeed, within US Jewish circles, the recent twenty-four months have seen the disintegration of a decades-long agreement about the Zionist movement.

The early development of Zionist agreement across American Jewish populations dates back to a 1915 essay by the lawyer and then future supreme court justice Justice Brandeis named “Jewish Issues; Addressing the Challenge”. But the consensus became firmly established following the Six-Day War in 1967. Before then, American Jewry contained a vulnerable but enduring parallel existence across various segments which maintained a range of views concerning the need for Israel – pro-Israel advocates, neutral parties and anti-Zionists.

Background Information

Such cohabitation endured during the post-war decades, through surviving aspects of Jewish socialism, in the non-Zionist Jewish communal organization, among the opposing American Council for Judaism and other organizations. For Louis Finkelstein, the chancellor at JTS, Zionism had greater religious significance rather than political, and he did not permit performance of the Israeli national anthem, the national song, during seminary ceremonies in those years. Furthermore, support for Israel the central focus for contemporary Orthodox communities prior to the six-day war. Jewish identitarian alternatives coexisted.

Yet after Israel routed adjacent nations during the 1967 conflict in 1967, taking control of areas including Palestinian territories, Gaza, Golan Heights and Jerusalem's eastern sector, the American Jewish connection with the nation changed dramatically. The triumphant outcome, coupled with longstanding fears of a “second Holocaust”, resulted in an increasing conviction in the country’s critical importance within Jewish identity, and generated admiration regarding its endurance. Language regarding the extraordinary nature of the outcome and the “liberation” of areas assigned the movement a theological, almost redemptive, significance. During that enthusiastic period, much of previous uncertainty about Zionism vanished. In that decade, Publication editor Podhoretz declared: “We are all Zionists now.”

The Consensus and Its Limits

The pro-Israel agreement did not include Haredi Jews – who largely believed Israel should only emerge via conventional understanding of the Messiah – however joined Reform, Conservative, Modern Orthodox and most unaffiliated individuals. The common interpretation of this agreement, identified as liberal Zionism, was established on the idea regarding Israel as a democratic and democratic – while majority-Jewish – state. Countless Jewish Americans considered the occupation of Palestinian, Syrian and Egypt's territories post-1967 as temporary, believing that a resolution was imminent that would ensure a Jewish majority within Israel's original borders and regional acceptance of the state.

Several cohorts of Jewish Americans were thus brought up with Zionism a fundamental aspect of their religious identity. The nation became an important element in Jewish learning. Israel’s Independence Day evolved into a religious observance. Blue and white banners were displayed in religious institutions. Summer camps became infused with Israeli songs and learning of the language, with Israelis visiting and teaching US young people Israeli customs. Visits to Israel grew and reached new heights via educational trips during that year, offering complimentary travel to the nation was offered to Jewish young adults. The nation influenced almost the entirety of Jewish American identity.

Evolving Situation

Interestingly, during this period following the war, US Jewish communities became adept at religious pluralism. Open-mindedness and communication among different Jewish movements expanded.

However regarding support for Israel – that’s where diversity reached its limit. One could identify as a rightwing Zionist or a progressive supporter, yet backing Israel as a Jewish state was assumed, and challenging that perspective categorized you outside the consensus – outside the community, as a Jewish periodical described it in a piece recently.

However currently, under the weight of the devastation of Gaza, starvation, young victims and frustration regarding the refusal within Jewish communities who refuse to recognize their complicity, that unity has broken down. The centrist pro-Israel view {has lost|no longer