🔗 Share this article

Marking two years after that horrific attack of October 7, 2023, an event that profoundly impacted world Jewry like no other occurrence since the creation of Israel as a nation.

Among Jewish people the event proved profoundly disturbing. For the state of Israel, it was a significant embarrassment. The entire Zionist endeavor had been established on the belief which held that the nation could stop similar tragedies from ever happening again.

A response was inevitable. But the response that Israel implemented – the widespread destruction of the Gaza Strip, the deaths and injuries of numerous non-combatants – was a choice. And this choice made more difficult how many Jewish Americans understood the initial assault that precipitated the response, and it now complicates their commemoration of the day. How does one mourn and commemorate an atrocity targeting their community while simultaneously devastation being inflicted upon another people in your name?

The Difficulty of Grieving

The difficulty of mourning lies in the reality that little unity prevails about the significance of these events. In fact, within US Jewish circles, this two-year period have seen the breakdown of a fifty-year unity about the Zionist movement.

The early development of Zionist agreement among American Jewry can be traced to a 1915 essay written by a legal scholar and then future high court jurist Justice Brandeis called “Jewish Issues; Finding Solutions”. But the consensus became firmly established following the six-day war in 1967. Previously, American Jewry maintained a fragile but stable coexistence between groups that had a range of views regarding the necessity for Israel – pro-Israel advocates, non-Zionists and anti-Zionists.

Previous Developments

This parallel existence persisted during the mid-twentieth century, within remaining elements of Jewish socialism, within the neutral Jewish communal organization, among the opposing American Council for Judaism and comparable entities. For Louis Finkelstein, the leader of the Jewish Theological Seminary, the Zionist movement had greater religious significance instead of governmental, and he prohibited singing Hatikvah, the national song, during seminary ceremonies during that period. Nor were Zionist ideology the centerpiece of Modern Orthodoxy before the six-day war. Different Jewish identity models coexisted.

Yet after Israel defeated its neighbors in the six-day war in 1967, taking control of areas comprising Palestinian territories, Gaza, the Golan and Jerusalem's eastern sector, US Jewish perspective on the country evolved considerably. The triumphant outcome, along with persistent concerns about another genocide, resulted in a growing belief in the country’s vital role within Jewish identity, and generated admiration regarding its endurance. Language about the “miraculous” nature of the outcome and the reclaiming of areas provided Zionism a religious, almost redemptive, significance. During that enthusiastic period, much of previous uncertainty about Zionism disappeared. During the seventies, Publication editor the commentator stated: “We are all Zionists now.”

The Agreement and Its Boundaries

The pro-Israel agreement excluded Haredi Jews – who generally maintained Israel should only be established through traditional interpretation of redemption – yet included Reform, Conservative, contemporary Orthodox and nearly all secular Jews. The most popular form of the unified position, identified as liberal Zionism, was founded on the conviction in Israel as a progressive and free – while majority-Jewish – nation. Numerous US Jews saw the occupation of local, Syria's and Egypt's territories after 1967 as provisional, thinking that an agreement would soon emerge that would ensure Jewish demographic dominance in pre-1967 Israel and Middle Eastern approval of the nation.

Several cohorts of US Jews were thus brought up with pro-Israel ideology an essential component of their religious identity. The state transformed into a central part of Jewish education. Yom Ha'atzmaut became a Jewish holiday. National symbols decorated religious institutions. Seasonal activities were permeated with Israeli songs and learning of contemporary Hebrew, with Israelis visiting educating US young people Israeli customs. Visits to Israel grew and achieved record numbers via educational trips during that year, when a free trip to Israel became available to young American Jews. The state affected virtually all areas of US Jewish life.

Evolving Situation

Interestingly, throughout these years post-1967, Jewish Americans developed expertise in religious diversity. Acceptance and dialogue across various Jewish groups expanded.

Yet concerning support for Israel – there existed tolerance ended. Individuals might align with a right-leaning advocate or a leftwing Zionist, however endorsement of the nation as a Jewish homeland was assumed, and questioning that narrative positioned you beyond accepted boundaries – outside the community, as a Jewish periodical labeled it in a piece recently.

However currently, during of the devastation in Gaza, famine, dead and orphaned children and anger about the rejection within Jewish communities who refuse to recognize their involvement, that agreement has collapsed. The moderate Zionist position {has lost|no longer