🔗 Share this article

Marking two years after the horrific attack of the events of October 7th, an event that profoundly impacted world Jewry more than any event since the creation of the state of Israel.

For Jews it was profoundly disturbing. For the state of Israel, the situation represented a significant embarrassment. The whole Zionist movement had been established on the assumption that the Jewish state would ensure against similar tragedies occurring in the future.

Military action appeared unavoidable. However, the particular response that Israel implemented – the widespread destruction of Gaza, the deaths and injuries of many thousands of civilians – constituted a specific policy. And this choice made more difficult the perspective of many American Jews understood the October 7th events that precipitated the response, and currently challenges their observance of that date. How can someone mourn and commemorate an atrocity against your people while simultaneously a catastrophe experienced by a different population attributed to their identity?

The Complexity of Grieving

The difficulty in grieving exists because of the circumstance where no agreement exists about the significance of these events. Indeed, among Jewish Americans, the recent twenty-four months have experienced the collapse of a fifty-year unity about the Zionist movement.

The origins of Zionist agreement across American Jewish populations extends as far back as a 1915 essay written by a legal scholar subsequently appointed Supreme Court judge Louis Brandeis titled “Jewish Issues; How to Solve it”. But the consensus truly solidified following the six-day war during 1967. Previously, American Jewry maintained a delicate yet functioning coexistence across various segments which maintained diverse perspectives about the need for a Jewish nation – Zionists, neutral parties and anti-Zionists.

Previous Developments

This parallel existence continued through the 1950s and 60s, within remaining elements of socialist Jewish movements, in the non-Zionist Jewish communal organization, in the anti-Zionist religious group and comparable entities. Regarding Chancellor Finkelstein, the head at JTS, Zionism was primarily theological rather than political, and he did not permit performance of Israel's anthem, the Israeli national anthem, at JTS ordinations in those years. Additionally, Zionism and pro-Israelism the main element of Modern Orthodoxy until after the six-day war. Alternative Jewish perspectives coexisted.

But after Israel overcame neighboring countries in that war during that period, seizing land such as the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and Jerusalem's eastern sector, the American Jewish relationship to Israel underwent significant transformation. The military success, along with longstanding fears about another genocide, resulted in a growing belief regarding Israel's critical importance for Jewish communities, and a source of pride regarding its endurance. Language concerning the remarkable quality of the outcome and the freeing of land assigned Zionism a religious, potentially salvific, importance. In that triumphant era, a significant portion of the remaining ambivalence regarding Zionism vanished. In the early 1970s, Commentary magazine editor Norman Podhoretz famously proclaimed: “Everyone supports Zionism today.”

The Agreement and Its Boundaries

The unified position excluded strictly Orthodox communities – who typically thought Israel should only emerge through traditional interpretation of the messiah – however joined Reform, Conservative Judaism, contemporary Orthodox and nearly all unaffiliated individuals. The common interpretation of the consensus, what became known as left-leaning Zionism, was founded on the conviction regarding Israel as a democratic and democratic – though Jewish-centered – country. Countless Jewish Americans considered the administration of Arab, Syria's and Egyptian lands after 1967 as not permanent, thinking that a solution was imminent that would ensure a Jewish majority in Israel proper and regional acceptance of the state.

Multiple generations of American Jews grew up with support for Israel a core part of their religious identity. The state transformed into a central part within religious instruction. Yom Ha'atzmaut turned into a celebration. National symbols decorated many temples. Seasonal activities were permeated with Hebrew music and learning of contemporary Hebrew, with visitors from Israel and teaching US young people Israeli customs. Visits to Israel grew and achieved record numbers via educational trips by 1999, when a free trip to the country was offered to Jewish young adults. The state affected nearly every aspect of Jewish American identity.

Changing Dynamics

Interestingly, throughout these years after 1967, US Jewish communities grew skilled in religious diversity. Acceptance and dialogue between Jewish denominations grew.

Except when it came to the Israeli situation – that represented tolerance found its boundary. One could identify as a rightwing Zionist or a progressive supporter, yet backing Israel as a Jewish homeland was assumed, and challenging that perspective positioned you beyond accepted boundaries – an “Un-Jew”, as Tablet magazine labeled it in writing recently.

However currently, during of the destruction of Gaza, food shortages, young victims and outrage about the rejection within Jewish communities who refuse to recognize their responsibility, that agreement has collapsed. The liberal Zionist “center” {has lost|no longer