🔗 Share this article

Marking two years after that mass murder of the events of October 7th, which deeply affected global Jewish populations like no other occurrence following the creation of the state of Israel.

Among Jewish people the event proved profoundly disturbing. For the Israeli government, the situation represented deeply humiliating. The whole Zionist endeavor rested on the presumption which held that the Jewish state could stop things like this from ever happening again.

Some form of retaliation appeared unavoidable. However, the particular response Israel pursued – the widespread destruction of Gaza, the casualties of many thousands non-combatants – represented a decision. This particular approach made more difficult the perspective of many American Jews grappled with the attack that precipitated the response, and currently challenges the community's commemoration of the day. How can someone grieve and remember a horrific event targeting their community during an atrocity experienced by other individuals in your name?

The Difficulty of Mourning

The complexity surrounding remembrance stems from the circumstance where no agreement exists as to what any of this means. In fact, within US Jewish circles, the recent twenty-four months have experienced the breakdown of a half-century-old agreement about the Zionist movement.

The beginnings of Zionist agreement within US Jewish communities can be traced to an early twentieth-century publication authored by an attorney and then future Supreme Court judge Louis Brandeis called “Jewish Issues; How to Solve it”. Yet the unity truly solidified following the 1967 conflict in 1967. Previously, American Jewry housed a delicate yet functioning parallel existence among different factions that had diverse perspectives regarding the need of a Jewish state – Zionists, non-Zionists and opponents.

Previous Developments

That coexistence endured during the 1950s and 60s, through surviving aspects of socialist Jewish movements, within the neutral Jewish communal organization, among the opposing religious group and other organizations. In the view of Louis Finkelstein, the leader of the Jewish Theological Seminary, pro-Israel ideology was primarily theological instead of governmental, and he forbade the singing of the Israeli national anthem, the national song, at JTS ordinations in those years. Nor were Zionism and pro-Israelism the main element within modern Orthodox Judaism until after the six-day war. Different Jewish identity models coexisted.

But after Israel defeated neighboring countries in the six-day war during that period, occupying territories comprising Palestinian territories, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, US Jewish relationship to Israel changed dramatically. The triumphant outcome, combined with enduring anxieties of a “second Holocaust”, resulted in a growing belief regarding Israel's essential significance to the Jewish people, and created pride for its strength. Discourse about the remarkable quality of the success and the reclaiming of territory assigned Zionism a spiritual, even messianic, meaning. In those heady years, considerable the remaining ambivalence about Zionism disappeared. In that decade, Publication editor Podhoretz stated: “Everyone supports Zionism today.”

The Consensus and Its Limits

The unified position excluded strictly Orthodox communities – who typically thought Israel should only be established by a traditional rendering of the messiah – yet included Reform, Conservative, Modern Orthodox and the majority of unaffiliated individuals. The common interpretation of the consensus, later termed liberal Zionism, was founded on the conviction in Israel as a democratic and free – albeit ethnocentric – country. Many American Jews considered the administration of local, Syria's and Egypt's territories post-1967 as not permanent, assuming that a resolution would soon emerge that would ensure Jewish population majority within Israel's original borders and regional acceptance of the state.

Several cohorts of American Jews were thus brought up with support for Israel a core part of their Jewish identity. The nation became a central part in Jewish learning. Yom Ha'atzmaut evolved into a religious observance. Blue and white banners decorated most synagogues. Youth programs integrated with Israeli songs and education of the language, with Israeli guests and teaching US young people Israeli culture. Visits to Israel grew and achieved record numbers with Birthright Israel in 1999, providing no-cost visits to the nation was offered to US Jewish youth. The state affected virtually all areas of Jewish American identity.

Changing Dynamics

Interestingly, in these decades after 1967, American Jewry became adept at religious pluralism. Tolerance and communication across various Jewish groups grew.

However regarding Zionism and Israel – that represented tolerance found its boundary. Individuals might align with a right-leaning advocate or a progressive supporter, however endorsement of the nation as a majority-Jewish country was a given, and challenging that perspective placed you outside mainstream views – outside the community, as a Jewish periodical labeled it in writing recently.

Yet presently, under the weight of the destruction in Gaza, famine, young victims and frustration over the denial of many fellow Jews who refuse to recognize their responsibility, that consensus has collapsed. The liberal Zionist “center” {has lost|no longer