🔗 Share this article

Marking two years after the horrific attack of 7 October 2023, which deeply affected global Jewish populations unlike anything else following the creation of Israel as a nation.

For Jews the event proved shocking. For the state of Israel, the situation represented a profound disgrace. The whole Zionist project was founded on the assumption which held that Israel would ensure against such atrocities occurring in the future.

Military action seemed necessary. But the response Israel pursued – the obliteration of the Gaza Strip, the deaths and injuries of tens of thousands of civilians – represented a decision. This selected path created complexity in how many US Jewish community members grappled with the attack that set it in motion, and it now complicates their commemoration of the anniversary. How can someone honor and reflect on a tragedy against your people during devastation done to a different population attributed to their identity?

The Challenge of Mourning

The challenge surrounding remembrance stems from the circumstance where there is no consensus about the significance of these events. Actually, for the American Jewish community, this two-year period have seen the breakdown of a fifty-year unity on Zionism itself.

The beginnings of Zionist agreement across American Jewish populations can be traced to writings from 1915 authored by an attorney and then future high court jurist Louis D. Brandeis titled “The Jewish Problem; Finding Solutions”. However, the agreement became firmly established following the 1967 conflict in 1967. Previously, American Jewry contained a fragile but stable coexistence between groups which maintained diverse perspectives concerning the need of a Jewish state – pro-Israel advocates, non-Zionists and opponents.

Background Information

This parallel existence continued throughout the mid-twentieth century, within remaining elements of socialist Jewish movements, within the neutral US Jewish group, in the anti-Zionist American Council for Judaism and similar institutions. Regarding Chancellor Finkelstein, the chancellor at JTS, the Zionist movement was primarily theological instead of governmental, and he did not permit performance of Israel's anthem, the national song, at JTS ordinations in the early 1960s. Nor were support for Israel the centerpiece of Modern Orthodoxy prior to the six-day war. Jewish identitarian alternatives remained present.

Yet after Israel routed its neighbors during the 1967 conflict in 1967, occupying territories such as Palestinian territories, Gaza, the Golan and Jerusalem's eastern sector, US Jewish connection with the nation evolved considerably. Israel’s victory, along with persistent concerns about another genocide, led to a developing perspective in the country’s essential significance for Jewish communities, and created pride in its resilience. Discourse about the “miraculous” aspect of the victory and the freeing of territory provided the Zionist project a spiritual, potentially salvific, meaning. During that enthusiastic period, a significant portion of the remaining ambivalence regarding Zionism dissipated. In the early 1970s, Writer the commentator famously proclaimed: “Everyone supports Zionism today.”

The Consensus and Its Limits

The unified position left out strictly Orthodox communities – who generally maintained a Jewish state should only be established via conventional understanding of redemption – yet included Reform Judaism, Conservative, Modern Orthodox and nearly all non-affiliated Jews. The predominant version of the consensus, what became known as progressive Zionism, was established on a belief regarding Israel as a liberal and liberal – albeit ethnocentric – country. Many American Jews considered the administration of Arab, Syrian and Egyptian lands post-1967 as provisional, assuming that a resolution was forthcoming that would ensure Jewish population majority in pre-1967 Israel and neighbor recognition of the nation.

Two generations of US Jews grew up with support for Israel a core part of their religious identity. Israel became a key component within religious instruction. Israel’s Independence Day became a Jewish holiday. National symbols decorated religious institutions. Youth programs became infused with national melodies and education of the language, with Israelis visiting educating American teenagers national traditions. Visits to Israel expanded and peaked with Birthright Israel in 1999, providing no-cost visits to the country became available to young American Jews. Israel permeated virtually all areas of Jewish American identity.

Shifting Landscape

Interestingly, during this period following the war, Jewish Americans became adept in religious diversity. Open-mindedness and dialogue among different Jewish movements expanded.

Except when it came to 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 Jewish state remained unquestioned, and questioning that narrative categorized you outside the consensus – a non-conformist, as a Jewish periodical termed it in a piece that year.

Yet presently, under the weight of the ruin within Gaza, starvation, child casualties and anger about the rejection within Jewish communities who refuse to recognize their complicity, that unity has collapsed. The liberal Zionist “center” {has lost|no longer