🔗 Share this article

Two years have passed since that mass murder of 7 October 2023, an event that shook world Jewry more than any event following the establishment of the state of Israel.

For Jews the event proved shocking. For the Israeli government, it was a significant embarrassment. The entire Zionist project had been established on the belief that the Jewish state could stop things like this repeating.

A response was inevitable. However, the particular response undertaken by Israel – the widespread destruction of Gaza, the casualties of many thousands ordinary people – constituted a specific policy. This selected path made more difficult how many Jewish Americans understood the initial assault that triggered it, and it now complicates their remembrance of the day. How does one grieve and remember a horrific event targeting their community in the midst of a catastrophe done to other individuals in your name?

The Complexity of Mourning

The challenge surrounding remembrance lies in the circumstance where no agreement exists regarding what any of this means. In fact, among Jewish Americans, the recent twenty-four months have experienced the collapse of a half-century-old agreement about the Zionist movement.

The origins of Zionist agreement across American Jewish populations extends as far back as a 1915 essay authored by an attorney subsequently appointed Supreme Court judge Louis Brandeis named “The Jewish Problem; Finding Solutions”. Yet the unity became firmly established subsequent to the six-day war that year. Before then, Jewish Americans housed a vulnerable but enduring parallel existence across various segments which maintained diverse perspectives regarding the necessity of a Jewish state – Zionists, neutral parties and anti-Zionists.

Historical Context

Such cohabitation endured during the 1950s and 60s, through surviving aspects of leftist Jewish organizations, through the non-aligned American Jewish Committee, in the anti-Zionist Jewish organization and other organizations. Regarding Chancellor Finkelstein, the chancellor at JTS, the Zionist movement was more spiritual rather than political, and he prohibited the singing of the Israeli national anthem, Hatikvah, at religious school events in those years. Furthermore, Zionist ideology the central focus for contemporary Orthodox communities before the 1967 conflict. Alternative Jewish perspectives remained present.

Yet after Israel defeated its neighbors in the six-day war that year, taking control of areas including the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, US Jewish perspective on the nation evolved considerably. The military success, coupled with longstanding fears about another genocide, led to a growing belief about the nation's essential significance for Jewish communities, and a source of pride in its resilience. Language concerning the extraordinary quality of the outcome and the reclaiming of areas assigned the Zionist project a theological, almost redemptive, meaning. In those heady years, much of existing hesitation toward Israel vanished. In that decade, Publication editor Norman Podhoretz stated: “Zionism unites us all.”

The Unity and Its Limits

The Zionist consensus left out the ultra-Orthodox – who generally maintained Israel should only emerge by a traditional rendering of the messiah – but united Reform, Conservative, contemporary Orthodox and most unaffiliated individuals. The predominant version of this agreement, identified as progressive Zionism, was based on the conviction in Israel as a democratic and liberal – though Jewish-centered – state. Numerous US Jews saw the occupation of Palestinian, Syrian and Egypt's territories following the war as temporary, believing that a solution was forthcoming that would ensure Jewish demographic dominance within Israel's original borders and neighbor recognition of the nation.

Two generations of American Jews were thus brought up with Zionism an essential component of their identity as Jews. Israel became a key component in Jewish learning. Yom Ha'atzmaut evolved into a religious observance. Blue and white banners were displayed in religious institutions. Youth programs became infused with national melodies and the study of the language, with visitors from Israel instructing US young people national traditions. Visits to Israel grew and reached new heights through Birthright programs in 1999, providing no-cost visits to the country was offered to Jewish young adults. The nation influenced nearly every aspect of the American Jewish experience.

Changing Dynamics

Ironically, throughout these years after 1967, American Jewry grew skilled in religious diversity. Open-mindedness and dialogue among different Jewish movements increased.

Except when it came to support for Israel – there existed diversity ended. One could identify as a right-leaning advocate or a liberal advocate, yet backing Israel as a Jewish state remained unquestioned, and criticizing that perspective positioned you beyond accepted boundaries – outside the community, as Tablet magazine described it in a piece recently.

But now, amid of the devastation of Gaza, starvation, dead and orphaned children and outrage over the denial by numerous Jewish individuals who decline to acknowledge their involvement, that consensus has broken down. The moderate Zionist position {has lost|no longer