🔗 Share this article

Marking two years after the mass murder of 7 October 2023, an event that shook Jewish communities worldwide more than any event since the establishment of the Jewish state.

Among Jewish people the event proved profoundly disturbing. For the state of Israel, the situation represented deeply humiliating. The entire Zionist movement rested on the presumption which held that the Jewish state could stop similar tragedies repeating.

A response appeared unavoidable. Yet the chosen course undertaken by Israel – the comprehensive devastation of the Gaza Strip, the casualties of numerous ordinary people – constituted a specific policy. And this choice created complexity in the perspective of many Jewish Americans understood the October 7th events that precipitated the response, and it now complicates the community's remembrance of the anniversary. In what way can people honor and reflect on an atrocity affecting their nation during devastation done to other individuals attributed to their identity?

The Challenge of Grieving

The challenge in grieving stems from the fact that there is no consensus regarding the significance of these events. Indeed, for the American Jewish community, this two-year period have experienced the breakdown of a decades-long consensus on Zionism itself.

The origins of Zionist agreement within US Jewish communities dates back to an early twentieth-century publication by the lawyer subsequently appointed Supreme Court judge Louis Brandeis titled “The Jewish Problem; Addressing the Challenge”. However, the agreement truly solidified subsequent to the six-day war in 1967. Before then, Jewish Americans housed a delicate yet functioning coexistence across various segments which maintained a range of views concerning the necessity for a Jewish nation – Zionists, neutral parties and anti-Zionists.

Historical Context

That coexistence continued during the mid-twentieth century, in remnants of socialist Jewish movements, through the non-aligned American Jewish Committee, within the critical Jewish organization and similar institutions. Regarding Chancellor Finkelstein, the leader of the Jewish Theological Seminary, pro-Israel ideology was primarily theological rather than political, and he forbade the singing of Hatikvah, Hatikvah, at JTS ordinations in the early 1960s. Furthermore, Zionism and pro-Israelism the centerpiece within modern Orthodox Judaism prior to the 1967 conflict. Different Jewish identity models coexisted.

However following Israel defeated neighboring countries in that war that year, occupying territories including the West Bank, Gaza Strip, the Golan and East Jerusalem, the American Jewish relationship to the nation underwent significant transformation. The triumphant outcome, along with longstanding fears about another genocide, produced a developing perspective about the nation's essential significance for Jewish communities, and a source of pride regarding its endurance. Language about the “miraculous” quality of the outcome and the freeing of land gave Zionism a theological, potentially salvific, meaning. During that enthusiastic period, much of existing hesitation toward Israel vanished. In the early 1970s, Writer Podhoretz stated: “Everyone supports Zionism today.”

The Unity and Its Limits

The unified position left out strictly Orthodox communities – who generally maintained a nation should only emerge by a traditional rendering of redemption – however joined Reform Judaism, Conservative, Modern Orthodox and the majority of non-affiliated Jews. The most popular form of this agreement, later termed left-leaning Zionism, was established on the conviction in Israel as a democratic and democratic – albeit ethnocentric – nation. Many American Jews considered the occupation of Arab, Syria's and Egypt's territories after 1967 as provisional, believing that an agreement was imminent that would guarantee a Jewish majority in Israel proper and Middle Eastern approval of Israel.

Two generations of Jewish Americans were thus brought up with Zionism a fundamental aspect of their religious identity. Israel became a key component of Jewish education. Israeli national day evolved into a religious observance. National symbols decorated many temples. Summer camps became infused with Israeli songs and the study of the language, with visitors from Israel instructing US young people national traditions. Trips to the nation expanded and achieved record numbers with Birthright Israel during that year, when a free trip to the country was offered to young American Jews. The nation influenced nearly every aspect of US Jewish life.

Shifting Landscape

Interestingly, during this period post-1967, US Jewish communities became adept regarding denominational coexistence. Tolerance and communication among different Jewish movements increased.

Yet concerning Zionism and Israel – that represented diversity reached its limit. One could identify as a rightwing Zionist or a liberal advocate, however endorsement of the nation as a majority-Jewish country remained unquestioned, and questioning that perspective categorized you beyond accepted boundaries – an “Un-Jew”, as Tablet magazine termed it in an essay that year.

Yet presently, amid of the devastation in Gaza, starvation, young victims and frustration about the rejection within Jewish communities who refuse to recognize their complicity, that consensus has broken down. The centrist pro-Israel view {has lost|no longer