🔗 Share this article

Two years have passed since the horrific attack of the events of October 7th, which deeply affected global Jewish populations like no other occurrence following the creation of the Jewish state.

Within Jewish communities the event proved profoundly disturbing. For Israel as a nation, the situation represented a significant embarrassment. The whole Zionist project was founded on the assumption that Israel could stop things like this from ever happening again.

A response appeared unavoidable. But the response Israel pursued – the comprehensive devastation of Gaza, the killing and maiming of tens of thousands ordinary people – constituted a specific policy. This selected path complicated the perspective of many American Jews processed the attack that triggered it, and currently challenges their commemoration of the day. In what way can people honor and reflect on a horrific event affecting their nation while simultaneously devastation being inflicted upon a different population connected to their community?

The Complexity of Mourning

The challenge surrounding remembrance lies in the reality that little unity prevails as to what any of this means. In fact, for the American Jewish community, the last two years have experienced the disintegration of a decades-long consensus about the Zionist movement.

The beginnings of pro-Israel unity within US Jewish communities dates back to a 1915 essay authored by an attorney subsequently appointed Supreme Court judge Louis Brandeis named “The Jewish Question; How to Solve it”. But the consensus really takes hold following the Six-Day War during 1967. Previously, American Jewry maintained a vulnerable but enduring parallel existence between groups holding a range of views concerning the necessity for Israel – Zionists, non-Zionists and opponents.

Background Information

This parallel existence continued throughout the post-war decades, through surviving aspects of Jewish socialism, through the non-aligned American Jewish Committee, within the critical Jewish organization and similar institutions. In the view of Louis Finkelstein, the chancellor of the theological institution, the Zionist movement was primarily theological rather than political, and he prohibited performance of the Israeli national anthem, the national song, at religious school events during that period. Nor were support for Israel the main element within modern Orthodox Judaism until after the six-day war. Different Jewish identity models remained present.

But after Israel defeated its neighbors in the six-day war during that period, taking control of areas such as Palestinian territories, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and Jerusalem's eastern sector, US Jewish perspective on the country evolved considerably. Israel’s victory, combined with enduring anxieties regarding repeated persecution, led to a developing perspective in the country’s essential significance to the Jewish people, and generated admiration for its strength. Discourse regarding the “miraculous” quality of the success and the “liberation” of territory assigned the Zionist project a religious, almost redemptive, significance. In those heady years, considerable previous uncertainty regarding Zionism disappeared. During the seventies, Writer the commentator declared: “We are all Zionists now.”

The Agreement and Its Limits

The unified position left out strictly Orthodox communities – who generally maintained Israel should only be ushered in via conventional understanding of redemption – yet included Reform, Conservative, Modern Orthodox and most unaffiliated individuals. The common interpretation of the unified position, later termed liberal Zionism, was based on a belief about the nation as a democratic and free – though Jewish-centered – state. Many American Jews viewed the control of Palestinian, Syrian and Egypt's territories after 1967 as not permanent, assuming that an agreement was forthcoming that would guarantee Jewish population majority in Israel proper and regional acceptance of Israel.

Two generations of American Jews were thus brought up with Zionism a fundamental aspect of their Jewish identity. The nation became an important element in Jewish learning. Yom Ha'atzmaut evolved into a religious observance. Israeli flags decorated many temples. Youth programs became infused with national melodies and learning of modern Hebrew, with Israelis visiting instructing American teenagers Israeli customs. Trips to the nation increased and reached new heights via educational trips by 1999, providing no-cost visits to the nation became available to Jewish young adults. Israel permeated almost the entirety of Jewish American identity.

Changing Dynamics

Paradoxically, during this period following the war, Jewish Americans grew skilled at religious pluralism. Acceptance and dialogue between Jewish denominations expanded.

Except when it came to support for Israel – there existed diversity reached its limit. You could be a right-leaning advocate or a liberal advocate, but support for Israel as a Jewish state was a given, and criticizing that position positioned you beyond accepted boundaries – outside the community, as a Jewish periodical termed it in a piece recently.

But now, during of the devastation within Gaza, starvation, young victims and frustration regarding the refusal by numerous Jewish individuals who decline to acknowledge their complicity, that unity has broken down. The centrist pro-Israel view {has lost|no longer