🔗 Share this article

Two years have passed since the deadly assault of the events of October 7th, which shook global Jewish populations more than any event following the establishment of Israel as a nation.

Among Jewish people it was profoundly disturbing. For the state of Israel, the situation represented deeply humiliating. The whole Zionist endeavor had been established on the assumption which held that the nation would prevent similar tragedies from ever happening again.

Military action appeared unavoidable. However, the particular response undertaken by Israel – the widespread destruction of the Gaza Strip, the deaths and injuries of numerous of civilians – constituted a specific policy. This particular approach complicated the way numerous American Jews understood the initial assault that set it in motion, and currently challenges the community's remembrance of the anniversary. How can someone honor and reflect on an atrocity targeting their community in the midst of devastation being inflicted upon another people connected to their community?

The Complexity of Remembrance

The challenge in grieving stems from the fact that little unity prevails as to the implications of these developments. Indeed, among Jewish Americans, the recent twenty-four months have experienced the collapse of a fifty-year agreement about the Zionist movement.

The beginnings of a Zionist consensus across American Jewish populations extends as far back as a 1915 essay authored by an attorney who would later become supreme court justice Justice Brandeis called “Jewish Issues; Finding Solutions”. Yet the unity really takes hold following the Six-Day War that year. Previously, Jewish Americans housed a delicate yet functioning parallel existence between groups holding a range of views regarding the need of a Jewish state – pro-Israel advocates, non-Zionists and opponents.

Background Information

Such cohabitation persisted throughout the mid-twentieth century, in remnants of socialist Jewish movements, through the non-aligned Jewish communal organization, within the critical Jewish organization and comparable entities. For Louis Finkelstein, the chancellor of the theological institution, Zionism was primarily theological than political, and he forbade singing Hatikvah, the national song, during seminary ceremonies during that period. Additionally, Zionist ideology the main element of Modern Orthodoxy prior to the 1967 conflict. Alternative Jewish perspectives existed alongside.

Yet after Israel overcame adjacent nations in the six-day war during that period, occupying territories comprising Palestinian territories, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, the American Jewish perspective on the nation underwent significant transformation. The triumphant outcome, along with enduring anxieties about another genocide, produced a growing belief in the country’s essential significance to the Jewish people, and created pride in its resilience. Language concerning the “miraculous” quality of the victory and the freeing of land assigned the Zionist project a religious, potentially salvific, meaning. In that triumphant era, much of existing hesitation about Zionism dissipated. In the early 1970s, Commentary magazine editor Norman Podhoretz stated: “We are all Zionists now.”

The Consensus and Its Limits

The pro-Israel agreement excluded the ultra-Orthodox – who typically thought Israel should only emerge via conventional understanding of redemption – but united Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism, contemporary Orthodox and most unaffiliated individuals. The most popular form of the unified position, identified as left-leaning Zionism, was founded on the conviction about the nation as a liberal and liberal – albeit ethnocentric – country. Countless Jewish Americans viewed the control of Arab, Syria's and Egyptian lands after 1967 as temporary, believing that an agreement was forthcoming that would ensure Jewish demographic dominance in pre-1967 Israel and Middle Eastern approval of Israel.

Multiple generations of US Jews grew up with pro-Israel ideology a core part of their religious identity. The nation became a key component within religious instruction. Israeli national day evolved into a religious observance. National symbols adorned religious institutions. Youth programs integrated with Hebrew music and education of modern Hebrew, with Israeli guests instructing US young people Israeli customs. Visits to Israel grew and reached new heights with Birthright Israel in 1999, offering complimentary travel to Israel became available to Jewish young adults. Israel permeated virtually all areas of the American Jewish experience.

Evolving Situation

Ironically, in these decades post-1967, Jewish Americans developed expertise at religious pluralism. Open-mindedness and dialogue across various Jewish groups increased.

However regarding the Israeli situation – that represented pluralism found its boundary. Individuals might align with a conservative supporter or a progressive supporter, yet backing Israel as a Jewish state was assumed, and challenging that perspective positioned you beyond accepted boundaries – an “Un-Jew”, as a Jewish periodical described it in an essay recently.

But now, under the weight of the devastation in Gaza, starvation, dead and orphaned children and outrage about the rejection of many fellow Jews who avoid admitting their involvement, that agreement has disintegrated. The moderate Zionist position {has lost|no longer