🔗 Share this article

Marking two years after the mass murder of 7 October 2023, which profoundly impacted Jewish communities worldwide like no other occurrence following the establishment of the Jewish state.

Among Jewish people it was profoundly disturbing. For the Israeli government, it was deeply humiliating. The whole Zionist movement had been established on the presumption which held that the Jewish state would prevent things like this occurring in the future.

A response seemed necessary. However, the particular response that Israel implemented – the widespread destruction of Gaza, the casualties of many thousands of civilians – was a choice. This selected path complicated the way numerous American Jews processed the October 7th events that precipitated the response, and currently challenges the community's remembrance of the day. How can someone mourn and commemorate a horrific event targeting their community during a catastrophe done to another people connected to their community?

The Complexity of Remembrance

The challenge of mourning lies in the fact that there is no consensus as to what any of this means. Actually, for the American Jewish community, the recent twenty-four months have witnessed the breakdown of a decades-long consensus regarding Zionism.

The beginnings of a Zionist consensus across American Jewish populations extends as far back as a 1915 essay written by a legal scholar subsequently appointed high court jurist Louis Brandeis titled “Jewish Issues; Addressing the Challenge”. But the consensus became firmly established subsequent to the six-day war during 1967. Previously, American Jewry housed a vulnerable but enduring cohabitation across various segments holding a range of views regarding the necessity of a Jewish state – Zionists, neutral parties and anti-Zionists.

Previous Developments

This parallel existence continued throughout the 1950s and 60s, within remaining elements of Jewish socialism, within the neutral Jewish communal organization, within the critical religious group and similar institutions. Regarding Chancellor Finkelstein, the leader of the theological institution, pro-Israel ideology had greater religious significance than political, and he forbade singing the Israeli national anthem, the national song, during seminary ceremonies in those years. Nor were support for Israel the centerpiece of Modern Orthodoxy until after the 1967 conflict. Different Jewish identity models existed alongside.

Yet after Israel defeated neighboring countries during the 1967 conflict that year, taking control of areas comprising Palestinian territories, Gaza, Golan Heights and Jerusalem's eastern sector, US Jewish relationship to the country underwent significant transformation. The military success, coupled with enduring anxieties about another genocide, resulted in a developing perspective regarding Israel's vital role within Jewish identity, and generated admiration regarding its endurance. Rhetoric regarding the remarkable quality of the outcome and the reclaiming of land provided the Zionist project a religious, potentially salvific, significance. During that enthusiastic period, much of previous uncertainty regarding Zionism dissipated. In the early 1970s, Commentary magazine editor the commentator famously proclaimed: “Zionism unites us all.”

The Agreement and Its Limits

The pro-Israel agreement did not include Haredi Jews – who generally maintained a nation should only emerge via conventional understanding of the messiah – but united Reform, Conservative Judaism, contemporary Orthodox and most unaffiliated individuals. The most popular form of the consensus, later termed left-leaning Zionism, was founded on a belief regarding Israel as a progressive and free – though Jewish-centered – country. Countless Jewish Americans viewed the occupation of Palestinian, Syrian and Egypt's territories post-1967 as temporary, assuming 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 American Jews grew up with Zionism an essential component of their religious identity. The nation became a key component in Jewish learning. Yom Ha'atzmaut turned into a celebration. Israeli flags were displayed in religious institutions. Seasonal activities were permeated with national melodies and education of contemporary Hebrew, with Israeli guests instructing US young people Israeli culture. Travel to Israel increased and achieved record numbers with Birthright Israel by 1999, providing no-cost visits to Israel became available to Jewish young adults. The state affected virtually all areas of the American Jewish experience.

Evolving Situation

Interestingly, in these decades after 1967, Jewish Americans grew skilled regarding denominational coexistence. Acceptance and communication between Jewish denominations grew.

However regarding Zionism and Israel – there existed tolerance reached its limit. One could identify as a conservative supporter or a liberal advocate, yet backing Israel as a majority-Jewish country remained unquestioned, and challenging that narrative placed you beyond accepted boundaries – outside the community, as one publication described it in a piece in 2021.

But now, amid of the ruin in Gaza, famine, child casualties and anger about the rejection within Jewish communities who refuse to recognize their involvement, that unity has broken down. The moderate Zionist position {has lost|no longer