🔗 Share this article

Marking two years after that horrific attack of 7 October 2023, which profoundly impacted Jewish communities worldwide more than any event since the creation of the Jewish state.

Within Jewish communities the event proved shocking. For Israel as a nation, the situation represented a significant embarrassment. The whole Zionist endeavor had been established on the presumption that Israel would prevent things like this occurring in the future.

A response was inevitable. Yet the chosen course Israel pursued – the comprehensive devastation of Gaza, the killing and maiming of numerous of civilians – constituted a specific policy. This particular approach made more difficult the perspective of many Jewish Americans processed the initial assault that triggered it, and it now complicates the community's commemoration of that date. In what way can people mourn and commemorate a tragedy against your people in the midst of an atrocity done to other individuals connected to their community?

The Difficulty of Remembrance

The challenge of mourning exists because of the reality that no agreement exists regarding the implications of these developments. Indeed, within US Jewish circles, the recent twenty-four months have witnessed the breakdown of a half-century-old agreement on Zionism itself.

The early development of pro-Israel unity within US Jewish communities extends as far back as writings from 1915 authored by an attorney who would later become Supreme Court judge Justice Brandeis named “The Jewish Question; How to Solve it”. However, the agreement became firmly established following the 1967 conflict during 1967. Before then, American Jewry contained a delicate yet functioning cohabitation across various segments holding diverse perspectives concerning the requirement of a Jewish state – pro-Israel advocates, non-Zionists and opponents.

Previous Developments

That coexistence persisted during the 1950s and 60s, in remnants of leftist Jewish organizations, in the non-Zionist American Jewish Committee, within the critical Jewish organization and similar institutions. Regarding Chancellor Finkelstein, the head of the theological institution, the Zionist movement was more spiritual instead of governmental, and he did not permit the singing of Hatikvah, the national song, at JTS ordinations during that period. Furthermore, support for Israel the centerpiece of Modern Orthodoxy before that war. Alternative Jewish perspectives existed alongside.

However following Israel overcame its neighbors in the six-day war that year, seizing land including the West Bank, Gaza Strip, the Golan and East Jerusalem, US Jewish relationship to the nation underwent significant transformation. The triumphant outcome, coupled with longstanding fears of a “second Holocaust”, resulted in an increasing conviction about the nation's critical importance for Jewish communities, and created pride for its strength. Rhetoric concerning the extraordinary nature of the outcome and the “liberation” of land assigned the Zionist project a spiritual, almost redemptive, importance. During that enthusiastic period, much of the remaining ambivalence regarding Zionism vanished. During the seventies, Writer Norman Podhoretz famously proclaimed: “Everyone supports Zionism today.”

The Consensus and Its Limits

The Zionist consensus excluded strictly Orthodox communities – who typically thought a Jewish state should only be established through traditional interpretation of the Messiah – yet included Reform Judaism, Conservative, contemporary Orthodox and most unaffiliated individuals. The most popular form of the consensus, identified as liberal Zionism, was based on a belief in Israel as a democratic and democratic – though Jewish-centered – nation. Numerous US Jews considered the control of Arab, Syria's and Egyptian lands following the war as temporary, believing that an agreement was forthcoming that would maintain Jewish demographic dominance in Israel proper and neighbor recognition of Israel.

Several cohorts of Jewish Americans grew up with support for Israel a core part of their Jewish identity. The state transformed into a key component in Jewish learning. Israel’s Independence Day turned into a celebration. Israeli flags were displayed in many temples. Summer camps became infused with Israeli songs and education of modern Hebrew, with Israelis visiting and teaching American youth national traditions. Trips to the nation increased and reached new heights via educational trips during that year, offering complimentary travel to the nation was offered to Jewish young adults. The nation influenced nearly every aspect of US Jewish life.

Changing Dynamics

Ironically, during this period post-1967, Jewish Americans became adept at religious pluralism. Open-mindedness and communication among different Jewish movements grew.

However regarding support for Israel – that represented diversity reached its limit. Individuals might align with a rightwing Zionist or a liberal advocate, yet backing Israel as a Jewish homeland was a given, and questioning that narrative placed you beyond accepted boundaries – outside the community, as Tablet magazine termed it in an essay recently.

But now, under the weight of the destruction within Gaza, famine, child casualties and anger regarding the refusal of many fellow Jews who decline to acknowledge their complicity, that consensus has broken down. The centrist pro-Israel view {has lost|no longer