🔗 Share this article

Two years have passed since the mass murder of October 7, 2023, which shook global Jewish populations like no other occurrence since the establishment of the state of Israel.

Within Jewish communities the event proved shocking. For the state of Israel, the situation represented a profound disgrace. The entire Zionist endeavor rested on the assumption which held that Israel would prevent such atrocities occurring in the future.

A response was inevitable. However, the particular response Israel pursued – the widespread destruction of the Gaza Strip, the deaths and injuries of tens of thousands of civilians – represented a decision. And this choice made more difficult the way numerous American Jews grappled with the October 7th events that set it in motion, and currently challenges their observance of that date. In what way can people honor and reflect on a horrific event affecting their nation during an atrocity done to a different population in your name?

The Difficulty of Remembrance

The challenge of mourning stems from the circumstance where there is no consensus as to what any of this means. In fact, for the American Jewish community, the recent twenty-four months have seen the breakdown of a half-century-old unity on Zionism itself.

The origins of Zionist agreement across American Jewish populations extends as far back as writings from 1915 by the lawyer and then future high court jurist Louis D. Brandeis named “Jewish Issues; Finding Solutions”. Yet the unity truly solidified after the six-day war that year. Earlier, US Jewish communities housed a vulnerable but enduring cohabitation between groups holding diverse perspectives concerning the requirement of a Jewish state – Zionists, non-Zionists and anti-Zionists.

Historical Context

That coexistence persisted throughout the mid-twentieth century, through surviving aspects of leftist Jewish organizations, in the non-Zionist American Jewish Committee, within the critical religious group and other organizations. In the view of Louis Finkelstein, the leader of the Jewish Theological Seminary, pro-Israel ideology had greater religious significance rather than political, and he forbade performance of Israel's anthem, Hatikvah, during seminary ceremonies during that period. Nor were Zionism and pro-Israelism the central focus within modern Orthodox Judaism prior to the six-day war. Different Jewish identity models remained present.

However following Israel routed adjacent nations during the 1967 conflict in 1967, occupying territories comprising the West Bank, Gaza Strip, the Golan and Jerusalem's eastern sector, the American Jewish perspective on the nation evolved considerably. The triumphant outcome, coupled with longstanding fears regarding repeated persecution, resulted in an increasing conviction in the country’s vital role to the Jewish people, and generated admiration in its resilience. Language concerning the “miraculous” nature of the outcome and the “liberation” of areas provided the Zionist project a religious, potentially salvific, meaning. During that enthusiastic period, considerable previous uncertainty toward Israel dissipated. In the early 1970s, Publication editor Norman Podhoretz famously proclaimed: “Zionism unites us all.”

The Agreement and Its Boundaries

The pro-Israel agreement did not include the ultra-Orthodox – who largely believed Israel should only emerge via conventional understanding of the messiah – yet included Reform Judaism, Conservative, Modern Orthodox and nearly all unaffiliated individuals. The predominant version of the consensus, what became known as left-leaning Zionism, was established on the idea about the nation as a democratic and liberal – while majority-Jewish – nation. Many American Jews saw the administration of local, Syria's and Egypt's territories following the war as provisional, believing that an agreement would soon emerge that would ensure a Jewish majority within Israel's original borders and regional acceptance of the nation.

Several cohorts of US Jews grew up with Zionism an essential component of their religious identity. The state transformed into a key component in Jewish learning. Israeli national day turned into a celebration. Blue and white banners adorned many temples. Summer camps integrated with national melodies and learning of contemporary Hebrew, with visitors from Israel instructing American teenagers national traditions. Travel to Israel increased and peaked with Birthright Israel by 1999, providing no-cost visits to the country became available to young American Jews. The state affected virtually all areas of Jewish American identity.

Evolving Situation

Interestingly, during this period following the war, Jewish Americans developed expertise in religious diversity. Acceptance and communication across various Jewish groups expanded.

However regarding Zionism and Israel – there existed tolerance reached its limit. Individuals might align with a rightwing Zionist or a progressive supporter, however endorsement of the nation as a Jewish state was assumed, and questioning that narrative categorized you outside mainstream views – outside the community, as Tablet magazine termed it in a piece recently.

But now, during of the devastation of Gaza, famine, young victims and frustration about the rejection within Jewish communities who refuse to recognize their complicity, that consensus has collapsed. The liberal Zionist “center” {has lost|no longer