🔗 Share this article

It has been that horrific attack of October 7, 2023, which shook world Jewry like no other occurrence following the establishment of the state of Israel.

Within Jewish communities it was profoundly disturbing. For the state of Israel, it was a significant embarrassment. The entire Zionist project had been established on the presumption that Israel would prevent such atrocities from ever happening again.

A response appeared unavoidable. But the response undertaken by Israel – the obliteration of Gaza, the deaths and injuries of many thousands ordinary people – constituted a specific policy. This selected path made more difficult the way numerous Jewish Americans processed the initial assault that precipitated the response, and presently makes difficult the community's observance of that date. How does one honor and reflect on an atrocity affecting their nation in the midst of a catastrophe being inflicted upon other individuals attributed to their identity?

The Complexity of Grieving

The difficulty surrounding remembrance exists because of the circumstance where little unity prevails regarding what any of this means. Indeed, for the American Jewish community, this two-year period have experienced the collapse of a half-century-old unity on Zionism itself.

The early development of a Zionist consensus among American Jewry can be traced to a 1915 essay by the lawyer and then future Supreme Court judge Louis D. Brandeis named “The Jewish Question; How to Solve it”. However, the agreement really takes hold following the Six-Day War in 1967. Previously, US Jewish communities contained a vulnerable but enduring parallel existence between groups that had different opinions regarding the need for a Jewish nation – Zionists, neutral parties and anti-Zionists.

Historical Context

That coexistence continued through the mid-twentieth century, within remaining elements of Jewish socialism, in the non-Zionist US Jewish group, in the anti-Zionist Jewish organization and similar institutions. Regarding Chancellor Finkelstein, the head at JTS, Zionism had greater religious significance instead of governmental, and he did not permit singing Israel's anthem, the Israeli national anthem, at religious school events in the early 1960s. Additionally, Zionist ideology the main element of Modern Orthodoxy before the 1967 conflict. Different Jewish identity models coexisted.

Yet after Israel routed adjacent nations during the 1967 conflict that year, occupying territories including Palestinian territories, Gaza, Golan Heights and Jerusalem's eastern sector, the American Jewish perspective on Israel changed dramatically. The triumphant outcome, coupled with persistent concerns of a “second Holocaust”, led to an increasing conviction regarding Israel's critical importance within Jewish identity, and generated admiration in its resilience. Language concerning the extraordinary aspect of the victory and the “liberation” of areas provided the Zionist project a religious, potentially salvific, significance. In those heady years, considerable existing hesitation about Zionism disappeared. In the early 1970s, Commentary magazine editor Podhoretz famously proclaimed: “We are all Zionists now.”

The Consensus and Its Limits

The pro-Israel agreement excluded strictly Orthodox communities – who typically thought a nation should only be ushered in via conventional understanding of redemption – yet included Reform, Conservative, Modern Orthodox and nearly all non-affiliated Jews. The common interpretation of the consensus, what became known as liberal Zionism, was established on the idea in Israel as a liberal and democratic – though Jewish-centered – nation. Many American Jews saw the administration of Arab, Syria's and Egyptian lands post-1967 as temporary, believing that an agreement would soon emerge that would maintain Jewish demographic dominance in pre-1967 Israel and neighbor recognition of Israel.

Multiple generations of US Jews grew up with pro-Israel ideology a core part of their Jewish identity. Israel became an important element of Jewish education. Yom Ha'atzmaut became a Jewish holiday. Blue and white banners decorated many temples. Seasonal activities became infused with Israeli songs and the study of the language, with visitors from Israel and teaching American youth Israeli customs. Visits to Israel increased and peaked through Birthright programs in 1999, providing no-cost visits to the nation became available to young American Jews. Israel permeated virtually all areas of Jewish American identity.

Shifting Landscape

Interestingly, in these decades following the war, Jewish Americans grew skilled at religious pluralism. Tolerance and dialogue between Jewish denominations grew.

However regarding support for Israel – that represented tolerance reached its limit. One could identify as a rightwing Zionist or a progressive supporter, yet backing Israel as a Jewish state was assumed, and challenging that perspective categorized you beyond accepted boundaries – a non-conformist, as Tablet magazine described it in a piece that year.

However currently, under the weight of the destruction within Gaza, famine, dead and orphaned children and anger over the denial by numerous Jewish individuals who avoid admitting their responsibility, that consensus has collapsed. The centrist pro-Israel view {has lost|no longer