🔗 Share this article

Marking two years after that horrific attack of the events of October 7th, an event that profoundly impacted Jewish communities worldwide more than any event since the creation of Israel as a nation.

Within Jewish communities the event proved profoundly disturbing. For the Israeli government, the situation represented a significant embarrassment. The whole Zionist endeavor rested on the belief which held that the Jewish state would prevent similar tragedies from ever happening again.

Some form of retaliation seemed necessary. However, the particular response undertaken by Israel – the widespread destruction of Gaza, the killing and maiming of tens of thousands non-combatants – represented a decision. And this choice made more difficult the way numerous American Jews understood the initial assault that precipitated the response, and it now complicates the community's observance of the anniversary. How can someone mourn and commemorate an atrocity affecting their nation in the midst of a catastrophe experienced by other individuals in your name?

The Difficulty of Mourning

The challenge of mourning stems from the circumstance where no agreement exists regarding the significance of these events. Actually, for the American Jewish community, this two-year period have seen the collapse of a half-century-old agreement on Zionism itself.

The origins of Zionist agreement among American Jewry extends as far back as writings from 1915 authored by an attorney and then future high court jurist Justice Brandeis called “Jewish Issues; How to Solve it”. But the consensus really takes hold after the 1967 conflict during 1967. Previously, US Jewish communities maintained a delicate yet functioning parallel existence among different factions which maintained a range of views concerning the requirement for Israel – Zionists, neutral parties and opponents.

Background Information

That coexistence endured throughout the mid-twentieth century, through surviving aspects of socialist Jewish movements, within the neutral American Jewish Committee, within the critical American Council for Judaism and similar institutions. Regarding Chancellor Finkelstein, the leader at JTS, Zionism was primarily theological instead of governmental, and he prohibited performance of the Israeli national anthem, the Israeli national anthem, at religious school events during that period. Nor were Zionist ideology the main element within modern Orthodox Judaism prior to that war. Alternative Jewish perspectives existed alongside.

However following Israel defeated its neighbors during the 1967 conflict in 1967, seizing land including Palestinian territories, Gaza, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, US Jewish connection with the country changed dramatically. Israel’s victory, coupled with longstanding fears about another genocide, resulted in an increasing conviction in the country’s essential significance to the Jewish people, and a source of pride in its resilience. Discourse concerning the remarkable nature of the success and the reclaiming of areas gave the Zionist project a religious, almost redemptive, significance. During that enthusiastic period, considerable existing hesitation about Zionism dissipated. During the seventies, Publication editor Norman Podhoretz declared: “We are all Zionists now.”

The Unity and Restrictions

The pro-Israel agreement excluded Haredi Jews – who largely believed a Jewish state should only emerge by a traditional rendering of redemption – however joined Reform, Conservative Judaism, Modern Orthodox and the majority of non-affiliated Jews. The predominant version of the consensus, what became known as liberal Zionism, was based on the idea in Israel as a liberal and democratic – while majority-Jewish – state. Many American Jews saw the administration of Arab, Syria's and Egyptian lands following the war as temporary, assuming that a solution would soon emerge that would ensure a Jewish majority in pre-1967 Israel and Middle Eastern approval of Israel.

Multiple generations of American Jews grew up with pro-Israel ideology a core part of their identity as Jews. The state transformed into an important element of Jewish education. Yom Ha'atzmaut evolved into a religious observance. Blue and white banners decorated many temples. Seasonal activities became infused with Israeli songs and the study of modern Hebrew, with visitors from Israel and teaching American teenagers Israeli customs. Travel to Israel expanded and achieved record numbers through Birthright programs by 1999, when a free trip to the nation was offered to young American Jews. The nation influenced virtually all areas of the American Jewish experience.

Changing Dynamics

Ironically, during this period following the war, American Jewry developed expertise in religious diversity. Open-mindedness and dialogue across various Jewish groups expanded.

Yet concerning the Israeli situation – that represented pluralism reached its limit. One could identify as a right-leaning advocate or a progressive supporter, yet backing Israel as a Jewish homeland was assumed, and questioning that position positioned you outside the consensus – an “Un-Jew”, as Tablet magazine described it in an essay that year.

However currently, under the weight of the destruction of Gaza, food shortages, dead and orphaned children and outrage over the denial within Jewish communities who refuse to recognize their complicity, that agreement has disintegrated. The moderate Zionist position {has lost|no longer