🔗 Share this article

Two years have passed since the horrific attack of the events of October 7th, an event that deeply affected world Jewry unlike anything else since the establishment of the Jewish state.

Within Jewish communities the event proved shocking. For the state of Israel, the situation represented deeply humiliating. The entire Zionist movement rested on the belief which held that the nation could stop things like this repeating.

A response was inevitable. However, the particular response that Israel implemented – the comprehensive devastation of the Gaza Strip, the casualties of many thousands ordinary people – represented a decision. And this choice created complexity in the perspective of many American Jews processed the attack that precipitated the response, and presently makes difficult their remembrance of the day. How does one honor and reflect on a horrific event affecting their nation during devastation being inflicted upon another people in your name?

The Complexity of Mourning

The complexity surrounding remembrance stems from the circumstance where little unity prevails as to the significance of these events. Actually, within US Jewish circles, the last two years have seen the collapse of a decades-long agreement about the Zionist movement.

The beginnings of pro-Israel unity across American Jewish populations can be traced to an early twentieth-century publication authored by an attorney subsequently appointed supreme court justice Justice Brandeis called “Jewish Issues; Addressing the Challenge”. However, the agreement truly solidified following the Six-Day War in 1967. Previously, Jewish Americans maintained a delicate yet functioning coexistence between groups that had a range of views concerning the requirement for a Jewish nation – pro-Israel advocates, neutral parties and anti-Zionists.

Historical Context

This parallel existence endured throughout the 1950s and 60s, within remaining elements of leftist Jewish organizations, through the non-aligned American Jewish Committee, in the anti-Zionist religious group and similar institutions. Regarding Chancellor Finkelstein, the chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary, the Zionist movement was more spiritual than political, and he forbade performance of the Israeli national anthem, the Israeli national anthem, during seminary ceremonies in those years. Additionally, Zionism and pro-Israelism the main element for contemporary Orthodox communities until after that war. Alternative Jewish perspectives remained present.

But after Israel routed its neighbors in that war during that period, seizing land such as the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and Jerusalem's eastern sector, US Jewish connection with Israel underwent significant transformation. Israel’s victory, combined with enduring anxieties of a “second Holocaust”, resulted in an increasing conviction in the country’s vital role to the Jewish people, and created pride for its strength. Language regarding the remarkable quality of the outcome and the freeing of land assigned the Zionist project a spiritual, potentially salvific, importance. During that enthusiastic period, a significant portion of existing hesitation toward Israel vanished. In the early 1970s, Commentary magazine editor Norman Podhoretz stated: “We are all Zionists now.”

The Agreement and Its Boundaries

The pro-Israel agreement did not include the ultra-Orthodox – who largely believed a Jewish state should only be established through traditional interpretation of redemption – yet included Reform Judaism, Conservative, Modern Orthodox and most non-affiliated Jews. The most popular form of the consensus, identified as left-leaning Zionism, was based on the conviction in Israel as a progressive and liberal – while majority-Jewish – nation. Numerous US Jews considered the control of Arab, Syria's and Egyptian lands after 1967 as not permanent, thinking that a resolution was imminent that would ensure Jewish demographic dominance in pre-1967 Israel and neighbor recognition of the state.

Two generations of American Jews were thus brought up with pro-Israel ideology a fundamental aspect of their identity as Jews. Israel became a central part within religious instruction. Israel’s Independence Day became a Jewish holiday. National symbols decorated religious institutions. Youth programs became infused with Israeli songs and education of contemporary Hebrew, with Israeli guests instructing American youth national traditions. Visits to Israel increased and peaked with Birthright Israel during that year, when a free trip to the nation was provided to young American Jews. The nation influenced almost the entirety of US Jewish life.

Changing Dynamics

Paradoxically, throughout these years post-1967, Jewish Americans became adept regarding denominational coexistence. Tolerance and discussion across various Jewish groups expanded.

However regarding Zionism and Israel – that’s where diversity found its boundary. One could identify as a rightwing Zionist or a liberal advocate, yet backing Israel as a majority-Jewish country remained unquestioned, and questioning that perspective placed you beyond accepted boundaries – an “Un-Jew”, as a Jewish periodical labeled it in an essay recently.

Yet presently, under the weight of the destruction of Gaza, food shortages, child casualties and anger over the denial by numerous Jewish individuals who decline to acknowledge their responsibility, that consensus has disintegrated. The moderate Zionist position {has lost|no longer