🔗 Share this article

It has been that horrific attack of the events of October 7th, which deeply affected global Jewish populations unlike anything else following the founding of the state of Israel.

For Jews 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 would prevent such atrocities repeating.

Some form of retaliation was inevitable. Yet the chosen course that Israel implemented – the obliteration of the Gaza Strip, the killing and maiming of tens of thousands of civilians – was a choice. This selected path complicated how many US Jewish community members processed the initial assault that precipitated the response, and currently challenges the community's commemoration of the anniversary. How can someone mourn and commemorate an atrocity against your people in the midst of a catastrophe done to other individuals connected to their community?

The Difficulty of Remembrance

The challenge in grieving lies in the circumstance where there is no consensus as to the implications of these developments. Indeed, among Jewish Americans, this two-year period have witnessed the breakdown of a half-century-old agreement on Zionism itself.

The beginnings of a Zionist consensus across American Jewish populations dates back to writings from 1915 by the lawyer and then future high court jurist Justice Brandeis called “The Jewish Question; How to Solve it”. But the consensus became firmly established after the 1967 conflict in 1967. Earlier, American Jewry housed a delicate yet functioning coexistence between groups which maintained diverse perspectives regarding the requirement of a Jewish state – pro-Israel advocates, non-Zionists and opponents.

Previous Developments

Such cohabitation continued throughout the mid-twentieth century, through surviving aspects of leftist Jewish organizations, within the neutral US Jewish group, within the critical religious group and other organizations. In the view of Louis Finkelstein, the head of the theological institution, the Zionist movement was more spiritual rather than political, and he prohibited singing Hatikvah, Hatikvah, during seminary ceremonies in those years. Additionally, support for Israel the centerpiece within modern Orthodox Judaism before that war. Jewish identitarian alternatives coexisted.

But after Israel defeated its neighbors in the six-day war during that period, taking control of areas comprising Palestinian territories, Gaza, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, the American Jewish relationship to Israel changed dramatically. The triumphant outcome, coupled with longstanding fears about another genocide, produced a growing belief in the country’s critical importance to the Jewish people, and a source of pride for its strength. Rhetoric regarding the remarkable nature of the outcome and the freeing of land assigned the movement a spiritual, almost redemptive, significance. In those heady years, much of the remaining ambivalence about Zionism vanished. In that decade, Publication editor the commentator declared: “We are all Zionists now.”

The Agreement and Restrictions

The unified position excluded strictly Orthodox communities – who generally maintained Israel should only be established through traditional interpretation of the messiah – but united Reform, Conservative, contemporary Orthodox and the majority of non-affiliated Jews. The common interpretation of the consensus, later termed liberal Zionism, was established on the idea in Israel as a democratic and free – albeit ethnocentric – country. Countless Jewish Americans considered the control of Arab, Syrian and Egyptian lands following the war as not permanent, assuming that an agreement would soon emerge that would ensure a Jewish majority within Israel's original borders and neighbor recognition of Israel.

Two generations of Jewish Americans were raised with Zionism an essential component of their identity as Jews. The state transformed into a key component of Jewish education. Israel’s Independence Day turned into a celebration. Israeli flags were displayed in religious institutions. Seasonal activities integrated with Hebrew music and education of the language, with visitors from Israel and teaching US young people Israeli culture. Trips to the nation grew and peaked via educational trips in 1999, providing no-cost visits to the country became available to US Jewish youth. Israel permeated virtually all areas of US Jewish life.

Changing Dynamics

Paradoxically, in these decades post-1967, American Jewry became adept regarding denominational coexistence. Open-mindedness and dialogue between Jewish denominations increased.

However regarding the Israeli situation – that’s where pluralism reached its limit. One could identify as a rightwing Zionist or a progressive supporter, yet backing Israel as a majority-Jewish country remained unquestioned, and challenging that perspective placed you outside the consensus – outside the community, as a Jewish periodical termed it in a piece that year.

However currently, during of the destruction in Gaza, food shortages, young victims and anger regarding the refusal within Jewish communities who avoid admitting their involvement, that consensus has disintegrated. The centrist pro-Israel view {has lost|no longer