🔗 Share this article

Marking two years after that mass murder of the events of October 7th, which deeply affected world Jewry unlike anything else since the founding of the Jewish state.

For Jews it was profoundly disturbing. For Israel as a nation, the situation represented a significant embarrassment. The whole Zionist movement rested on the belief that Israel would prevent similar tragedies occurring in the future.

Some form of retaliation appeared unavoidable. Yet the chosen course Israel pursued – the comprehensive devastation of Gaza, the killing and maiming of many thousands of civilians – constituted a specific policy. And this choice created complexity in the perspective of many US Jewish community members processed the October 7th events that precipitated the response, and it now complicates their commemoration of the anniversary. How does one honor and reflect on a tragedy against your people while simultaneously devastation being inflicted upon other individuals attributed to their identity?

The Challenge of Remembrance

The difficulty surrounding remembrance lies in the fact that there is no consensus about what any of this means. Actually, within US Jewish circles, the last two years have seen the disintegration of a half-century-old unity about the Zionist movement.

The early development of a Zionist consensus within US Jewish communities can be traced to writings from 1915 by the lawyer who would later become supreme court justice Louis Brandeis named “The Jewish Question; How to Solve it”. But the consensus became firmly established following the 1967 conflict during 1967. Before then, American Jewry housed a delicate yet functioning coexistence between groups that had a range of views concerning the necessity for Israel – pro-Israel advocates, neutral parties and opponents.

Previous Developments

That coexistence continued through the mid-twentieth century, through surviving aspects of Jewish socialism, within the neutral US Jewish group, in the anti-Zionist Jewish organization and comparable entities. In the view of Louis Finkelstein, the leader at JTS, pro-Israel ideology was primarily theological rather than political, and he forbade performance of Israel's anthem, Hatikvah, at religious school events during that period. Nor were Zionism and pro-Israelism the centerpiece within modern Orthodox Judaism before that war. Different Jewish identity models remained present.

But after Israel routed adjacent nations in that war in 1967, occupying territories such as the West Bank, Gaza Strip, the Golan and Jerusalem's eastern sector, US Jewish connection with the nation evolved considerably. The triumphant outcome, coupled with longstanding fears regarding repeated persecution, produced a growing belief regarding Israel's essential significance to the Jewish people, and a source of pride in its resilience. Discourse concerning the “miraculous” nature of the success and the “liberation” of areas gave the Zionist project a theological, almost redemptive, significance. In that triumphant era, much of previous uncertainty regarding Zionism disappeared. In the early 1970s, Writer the commentator declared: “Zionism unites us all.”

The Consensus and Its Limits

The pro-Israel agreement excluded the ultra-Orthodox – who generally maintained a Jewish state should only be ushered in through traditional interpretation of the Messiah – however joined Reform Judaism, Conservative, Modern Orthodox and the majority of unaffiliated individuals. The most popular form of this agreement, later termed progressive Zionism, was established on a belief in Israel as a progressive and free – while majority-Jewish – nation. Many American Jews considered the occupation of Arab, Syria's and Egypt's territories following the war as temporary, thinking that a resolution was forthcoming that would ensure Jewish demographic dominance within Israel's original borders and Middle Eastern approval of the nation.

Several cohorts of US Jews grew up with Zionism an essential component of their Jewish identity. The nation became a central part within religious instruction. Yom Ha'atzmaut became a Jewish holiday. Blue and white banners adorned religious institutions. Seasonal activities became infused with national melodies and the study of contemporary Hebrew, with Israeli guests instructing US young people Israeli culture. Visits to Israel increased and reached new heights through Birthright programs by 1999, providing no-cost visits to Israel became available to US Jewish youth. The state affected almost the entirety of Jewish American identity.

Shifting Landscape

Ironically, in these decades after 1967, American Jewry became adept at religious pluralism. Open-mindedness and dialogue between Jewish denominations increased.

However regarding support for Israel – that’s where tolerance found its boundary. One could identify as a conservative supporter or a leftwing Zionist, however endorsement of the nation as a Jewish homeland was a given, and challenging that perspective placed you outside the consensus – outside the community, as one publication described it in an essay recently.

Yet presently, amid of the devastation within Gaza, food shortages, young victims and frustration over the denial within Jewish communities who refuse to recognize their involvement, that consensus has collapsed. The liberal Zionist “center” {has lost|no longer