🔗 Share this article

Marking two years after the horrific attack of October 7, 2023, which shook global Jewish populations like no other occurrence since the creation of the state of Israel.

Among Jewish people the event proved deeply traumatic. For the state of Israel, the situation represented a profound disgrace. The whole Zionist project rested on the presumption which held that the Jewish state would ensure against such atrocities from ever happening again.

Some form of retaliation was inevitable. Yet the chosen course Israel pursued – the obliteration of the Gaza Strip, the casualties of tens of thousands ordinary people – represented a decision. And this choice complicated the perspective of many American Jews understood the attack that triggered it, and presently makes difficult the community's observance of that date. In what way can people honor and reflect on a tragedy against your people during devastation being inflicted upon a different population connected to their community?

The Difficulty of Mourning

The complexity surrounding remembrance stems from the reality that no agreement exists as to what any of this means. Indeed, for the American Jewish community, the recent twenty-four months have seen the breakdown of a half-century-old agreement on Zionism itself.

The early development of a Zionist consensus within US Jewish communities can be traced to an early twentieth-century publication written by a legal scholar who would later become supreme court justice Louis D. Brandeis titled “Jewish Issues; Finding Solutions”. Yet the unity truly solidified after the Six-Day War that year. Earlier, American Jewry housed a delicate yet functioning coexistence across various segments that had diverse perspectives concerning the need for a Jewish nation – Zionists, neutral parties and anti-Zionists.

Historical Context

Such cohabitation endured through the mid-twentieth century, within remaining elements of leftist Jewish organizations, within the neutral US Jewish group, within the critical American Council for Judaism and similar institutions. In the view of Louis Finkelstein, the chancellor of the theological institution, Zionism was more spiritual instead of governmental, and he did not permit singing Hatikvah, the national song, at JTS ordinations in those years. Nor were Zionism and pro-Israelism the centerpiece for contemporary Orthodox communities until after that war. Alternative Jewish perspectives existed alongside.

But after Israel defeated neighboring countries during the 1967 conflict that year, occupying territories comprising Palestinian territories, Gaza, the Golan and East Jerusalem, the American Jewish connection with Israel changed dramatically. The military success, along with enduring anxieties about another genocide, produced a growing belief about the nation's critical importance for Jewish communities, and generated admiration in its resilience. Discourse concerning the extraordinary nature of the victory and the freeing of areas provided the Zionist project a theological, almost redemptive, importance. In those heady years, considerable previous uncertainty about Zionism vanished. In the early 1970s, Writer Norman Podhoretz declared: “Zionism unites us all.”

The Agreement and Its Limits

The unified position excluded the ultra-Orthodox – who generally maintained a nation should only emerge through traditional interpretation of the messiah – however joined Reform, Conservative Judaism, contemporary Orthodox and the majority of non-affiliated Jews. The predominant version of the consensus, later termed liberal Zionism, was based on the conviction about the nation as a progressive and democratic – while majority-Jewish – nation. Many American Jews considered the administration of Arab, Syria's and Egypt's territories after 1967 as not permanent, believing that a solution was forthcoming that would maintain Jewish demographic dominance in Israel proper and regional acceptance of Israel.

Multiple generations of US Jews were thus brought up with support for Israel a fundamental aspect of their religious identity. The state transformed into an important element of Jewish education. Israeli national day turned into a celebration. Blue and white banners were displayed in religious institutions. Seasonal activities integrated with Hebrew music and the study of modern Hebrew, with Israeli guests instructing American teenagers Israeli customs. Visits to Israel expanded and reached new heights with Birthright Israel by 1999, offering complimentary travel to Israel was offered to Jewish young adults. Israel permeated nearly every aspect of Jewish American identity.

Changing Dynamics

Ironically, during this period post-1967, Jewish Americans developed expertise in religious diversity. Tolerance and dialogue across various Jewish groups expanded.

However regarding the Israeli situation – there existed diversity ended. Individuals might align with a rightwing Zionist or a liberal advocate, however endorsement of the nation as a Jewish homeland was a given, and challenging that narrative categorized you outside mainstream views – an “Un-Jew”, as one publication termed it in a piece that year.

But now, under the weight of the devastation of Gaza, famine, young victims and anger over the denial within Jewish communities who avoid admitting their complicity, that consensus has broken down. The moderate Zionist position {has lost|no longer