🔗 Share this article

Marking two years after that mass murder of the events of October 7th, an event that shook global Jewish populations like no other occurrence since the founding of the Jewish state.

Within Jewish communities it was shocking. For the state of Israel, the situation represented a significant embarrassment. The whole Zionist endeavor was founded on the presumption which held that Israel could stop such atrocities from ever happening again.

Some form of retaliation appeared unavoidable. Yet the chosen course Israel pursued – the obliteration of the Gaza Strip, the deaths and injuries of numerous non-combatants – represented a decision. This particular approach created complexity in the way numerous Jewish Americans grappled with the October 7th events that precipitated the response, and it now complicates their remembrance of the day. In what way can people mourn and commemorate an atrocity affecting their nation during devastation being inflicted upon other individuals connected to their community?

The Difficulty of Mourning

The challenge of mourning exists because of the reality that there is no consensus as to what any of this means. In fact, for the American Jewish community, the recent twenty-four months have witnessed the breakdown of a half-century-old agreement on Zionism itself.

The early development of pro-Israel unity among American Jewry extends as far back as writings from 1915 written by a legal scholar who would later become high court jurist Louis D. Brandeis titled “Jewish Issues; Finding Solutions”. But the consensus truly solidified after the Six-Day War that year. Earlier, American Jewry housed a fragile but stable parallel existence among different factions holding a range of views concerning the necessity for a Jewish nation – Zionists, neutral parties and anti-Zionists.

Background Information

That coexistence persisted through the 1950s and 60s, in remnants of leftist Jewish organizations, in the non-Zionist American Jewish Committee, within the critical Jewish organization and similar institutions. In the view of Louis Finkelstein, the chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary, pro-Israel ideology had greater religious significance than political, and he did not permit singing the Israeli national anthem, Hatikvah, at religious school events during that period. Furthermore, support for Israel the centerpiece for contemporary Orthodox communities prior to that war. Jewish identitarian alternatives existed alongside.

However following Israel overcame its neighbors during the 1967 conflict in 1967, seizing land including Palestinian territories, Gaza, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, US Jewish perspective on Israel changed dramatically. Israel’s victory, coupled with persistent concerns of a “second Holocaust”, led to a growing belief in the country’s vital role to the Jewish people, and generated admiration in its resilience. Language about the “miraculous” quality of the victory and the reclaiming of areas assigned the movement a theological, potentially salvific, meaning. During that enthusiastic period, much of previous uncertainty about Zionism vanished. In that decade, Commentary magazine editor Podhoretz famously proclaimed: “Zionism unites us all.”

The Unity and Restrictions

The unified position left out Haredi Jews – who typically thought a Jewish state should only emerge through traditional interpretation of the Messiah – but united Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism, Modern Orthodox and most secular Jews. The most popular form of this agreement, what became known as left-leaning Zionism, was established on a belief in Israel as a democratic and democratic – while majority-Jewish – nation. Countless Jewish Americans considered the administration of local, Syria's and Egypt's territories following the war as not permanent, assuming that a solution would soon emerge that would maintain Jewish population majority in pre-1967 Israel and Middle Eastern approval of the state.

Several cohorts of US Jews were raised with pro-Israel ideology a core part of their religious identity. The nation became an important element within religious instruction. Israeli national day became a Jewish holiday. Blue and white banners adorned many temples. Youth programs integrated with Hebrew music and education of modern Hebrew, with visitors from Israel and teaching American youth Israeli customs. Visits to Israel grew and reached new heights with Birthright Israel by 1999, when a free trip to the nation was offered to young American Jews. The nation influenced nearly every aspect of US Jewish life.

Shifting Landscape

Interestingly, in these decades following the war, US Jewish communities grew skilled regarding denominational coexistence. Tolerance and discussion among different Jewish movements grew.

However regarding Zionism and Israel – that’s where tolerance ended. One could identify as a rightwing Zionist or a progressive supporter, yet backing Israel as a Jewish homeland was assumed, and criticizing that narrative placed you outside the consensus – outside the community, as Tablet magazine termed it in a piece that year.

But now, amid of the ruin within Gaza, food shortages, young victims and outrage over the denial of many fellow Jews who avoid admitting their complicity, that consensus has disintegrated. The moderate Zionist position {has lost|no longer