🔗 Share this article

Two years have passed since the deadly assault of October 7, 2023, an event that shook global Jewish populations more than any event following the creation of Israel as a nation.

Among Jewish people the event proved deeply traumatic. For Israel as a nation, it was deeply humiliating. The entire Zionist endeavor was founded on the belief that Israel would ensure against things like this from ever happening again.

A response seemed necessary. However, the particular response Israel pursued – the widespread destruction of the Gaza Strip, the deaths and injuries of numerous non-combatants – constituted a specific policy. This selected path made more difficult the perspective of many American Jews grappled with the October 7th events that triggered it, and currently challenges the community's remembrance of the day. In what way can people grieve and remember a tragedy affecting their nation while simultaneously devastation done to a different population attributed to their identity?

The Difficulty of Mourning

The difficulty surrounding remembrance exists because of the reality that little unity prevails about the significance of these events. In fact, within US Jewish circles, the recent twenty-four months have seen the collapse of a half-century-old consensus about the Zionist movement.

The early development of Zionist agreement across American Jewish populations can be traced to a 1915 essay written by a legal scholar subsequently appointed Supreme Court judge Justice Brandeis named “The Jewish Problem; Addressing the Challenge”. But the consensus became firmly established subsequent to the Six-Day War that year. Previously, US Jewish communities maintained a delicate yet functioning cohabitation among different factions that had diverse perspectives concerning the need for a Jewish nation – pro-Israel advocates, neutral parties and opponents.

Background Information

That coexistence endured during the post-war decades, through surviving aspects of Jewish socialism, within the neutral US Jewish group, within the critical Jewish organization and comparable entities. For Louis Finkelstein, the head at JTS, Zionism was more spiritual rather than political, and he did not permit singing Hatikvah, Hatikvah, during seminary ceremonies in those years. Additionally, Zionist ideology the centerpiece for contemporary Orthodox communities prior to that war. Different Jewish identity models coexisted.

But after Israel overcame its neighbors in the six-day war during that period, seizing land including the West Bank, Gaza Strip, the Golan and East Jerusalem, the American Jewish perspective on the country underwent significant transformation. The triumphant outcome, along with longstanding fears about another genocide, resulted in a developing perspective regarding Israel's critical importance within Jewish identity, and a source of pride regarding its endurance. Language regarding the “miraculous” nature of the victory and the “liberation” of territory gave the Zionist project a spiritual, almost redemptive, significance. In that triumphant era, much of previous uncertainty about Zionism vanished. In the early 1970s, Writer Podhoretz stated: “Everyone supports Zionism today.”

The Agreement and Restrictions

The pro-Israel agreement excluded Haredi Jews – who largely believed a Jewish state should only be ushered in via conventional understanding of redemption – yet included Reform Judaism, Conservative, contemporary Orthodox and most non-affiliated Jews. The most popular form of this agreement, what became known as progressive Zionism, was based on the idea in Israel as a democratic and liberal – while majority-Jewish – nation. Many American Jews viewed the administration of Arab, Syria's and Egypt's territories after 1967 as not permanent, believing that an agreement would soon emerge that would ensure Jewish demographic dominance in pre-1967 Israel and regional acceptance of Israel.

Several cohorts of Jewish Americans grew up with Zionism an essential component of their Jewish identity. Israel became a central part within religious instruction. Israel’s Independence Day turned into a celebration. National symbols decorated many temples. Youth programs integrated with Israeli songs and the study of the language, with Israelis visiting and teaching US young people Israeli culture. Travel to Israel grew and peaked with Birthright Israel in 1999, when a free trip to Israel was offered to US Jewish youth. The state affected nearly every aspect of the American Jewish experience.

Shifting Landscape

Interestingly, in these decades post-1967, US Jewish communities grew skilled at religious pluralism. Open-mindedness and communication among different Jewish movements grew.

Except when it came to the Israeli situation – that represented pluralism found its boundary. You could be a right-leaning advocate or a progressive supporter, but support for Israel as a Jewish homeland was a given, and challenging that narrative placed you outside mainstream views – outside the community, as one publication labeled it in a piece that year.

But now, amid of the destruction of Gaza, food shortages, young victims and frustration about the rejection of many fellow Jews who decline to acknowledge their complicity, that consensus has disintegrated. The moderate Zionist position {has lost|no longer