🔗 Share this article

Two years have passed since that horrific attack of October 7, 2023, an event that deeply affected global Jewish populations more than any event following the establishment of the Jewish state.

Among Jewish people the event proved profoundly disturbing. For the Israeli government, it was a significant embarrassment. The entire Zionist movement rested on the belief which held that Israel could stop similar tragedies from ever happening again.

A response appeared unavoidable. Yet the chosen course undertaken by Israel – the widespread destruction of the Gaza Strip, the killing and maiming of many thousands of civilians – was a choice. And this choice created complexity in how many US Jewish community members understood the initial assault that triggered it, and it now complicates their commemoration of the day. In what way can people honor and reflect on a horrific event against your people during an atrocity experienced by a different population connected to their community?

The Complexity of Mourning

The challenge in grieving lies in the fact that no agreement exists regarding the significance of these events. Actually, for the American Jewish community, the recent twenty-four months have experienced the collapse of a decades-long unity on Zionism itself.

The origins of a Zionist consensus within US Jewish communities extends as far back as a 1915 essay by the lawyer who would later become Supreme Court judge Louis Brandeis named “The Jewish Question; How to Solve it”. But the consensus became firmly established subsequent to the 1967 conflict in 1967. Before then, American Jewry housed a delicate yet functioning parallel existence among different factions holding diverse perspectives concerning the necessity of a Jewish state – Zionists, neutral parties and anti-Zionists.

Historical Context

Such cohabitation continued during the post-war decades, through surviving aspects of socialist Jewish movements, within the neutral Jewish communal organization, within the critical Jewish organization and comparable entities. In the view of Louis Finkelstein, the head of the theological institution, the Zionist movement was more spiritual instead of governmental, and he did not permit singing Hatikvah, Hatikvah, during seminary ceremonies in those years. Additionally, support for Israel the main element within modern Orthodox Judaism until after the 1967 conflict. Different Jewish identity models existed alongside.

However following Israel defeated its neighbors in that war during that period, occupying territories comprising the West Bank, Gaza Strip, the Golan and East Jerusalem, US Jewish connection with the nation changed dramatically. Israel’s victory, combined with persistent concerns about another genocide, resulted in a developing perspective regarding Israel's essential significance within Jewish identity, and a source of pride regarding its endurance. Rhetoric regarding the remarkable aspect of the outcome and the reclaiming of territory assigned Zionism a spiritual, almost redemptive, significance. In those heady years, considerable previous uncertainty about Zionism vanished. During the seventies, Publication editor the commentator stated: “Everyone supports Zionism today.”

The Agreement and Its Limits

The pro-Israel agreement left out strictly Orthodox communities – who largely believed a nation should only emerge by a traditional rendering of the messiah – but united Reform, Conservative Judaism, contemporary Orthodox and nearly all secular Jews. The common interpretation of the unified position, later termed progressive Zionism, was founded on the idea in Israel as a democratic and liberal – albeit ethnocentric – nation. Numerous US Jews saw the occupation of local, Syria's and Egypt's territories following the war as not permanent, assuming that an agreement was imminent that would maintain a Jewish majority in Israel proper and neighbor recognition of Israel.

Two generations of American Jews were raised with pro-Israel ideology a fundamental aspect of their Jewish identity. Israel became an important element in Jewish learning. Israel’s Independence Day became a Jewish holiday. Israeli flags adorned religious institutions. Summer camps integrated with Hebrew music and the study of modern Hebrew, with Israelis visiting educating US young people Israeli culture. Trips to the nation increased and achieved record numbers through Birthright programs by 1999, providing no-cost visits to the nation became available to Jewish young adults. The nation influenced almost the entirety of Jewish American identity.

Shifting Landscape

Paradoxically, throughout these years following the war, Jewish Americans became adept at religious pluralism. Tolerance and communication between Jewish denominations expanded.

Except when it came to the Israeli situation – there existed tolerance reached its limit. One could identify as a right-leaning advocate or a liberal advocate, however endorsement of the nation as a majority-Jewish country remained unquestioned, and criticizing that narrative placed you outside the consensus – an “Un-Jew”, as a Jewish periodical described it in a piece that year.

But now, during of the devastation in Gaza, food shortages, child casualties and anger regarding the refusal of many fellow Jews who refuse to recognize their responsibility, that consensus has collapsed. The moderate Zionist position {has lost|no longer