🔗 Share this article

Two years have passed since that horrific attack of October 7, 2023, which deeply affected global Jewish populations unlike anything else following the establishment of the state of Israel.

For Jews the event proved profoundly disturbing. For Israel as a nation, the situation represented a profound disgrace. The entire Zionist project rested on the assumption that Israel would ensure against things like this from ever happening again.

Military action appeared unavoidable. However, the particular response undertaken by Israel – the obliteration of Gaza, the killing and maiming of many thousands of civilians – was a choice. This selected path complicated how many Jewish Americans processed the initial assault that set it in motion, and presently makes difficult their remembrance of that date. In what way can people grieve and remember a horrific event affecting their nation during a catastrophe experienced by another people attributed to their identity?

The Challenge of Remembrance

The complexity surrounding remembrance lies in the fact that no agreement exists about the implications of these developments. In fact, for the American Jewish community, the last two years have witnessed the breakdown of a half-century-old consensus about the Zionist movement.

The beginnings of a Zionist consensus among American Jewry extends as far back as writings from 1915 by the lawyer subsequently appointed high court jurist Louis D. Brandeis called “Jewish Issues; Addressing the Challenge”. Yet the unity became firmly established following the six-day war that year. Earlier, American Jewry contained a fragile but stable cohabitation across various segments which maintained different opinions regarding the necessity of a Jewish state – Zionists, neutral parties and anti-Zionists.

Background Information

That coexistence continued through the mid-twentieth century, within remaining elements of socialist Jewish movements, in the non-Zionist American Jewish Committee, in the anti-Zionist religious group and comparable entities. Regarding Chancellor Finkelstein, the chancellor of the theological institution, pro-Israel ideology had greater religious significance than political, and he forbade singing Hatikvah, the national song, during seminary ceremonies in the early 1960s. Furthermore, Zionist ideology the central focus within modern Orthodox Judaism before the 1967 conflict. Different Jewish identity models existed alongside.

However following Israel routed its neighbors in the six-day war during that period, taking control of areas such as the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan and East Jerusalem, US Jewish perspective on the country underwent significant transformation. The triumphant outcome, coupled with longstanding fears of a “second Holocaust”, produced a developing perspective in the country’s vital role within Jewish identity, and a source of pride regarding its endurance. Language about the “miraculous” aspect of the success and the reclaiming of areas assigned the Zionist project a religious, even messianic, meaning. In that triumphant era, considerable previous uncertainty toward Israel disappeared. In that decade, Publication editor Norman Podhoretz famously proclaimed: “Zionism unites us all.”

The Unity and Its Limits

The unified position did not include strictly Orthodox communities – who largely believed a Jewish state should only emerge by a traditional rendering of redemption – yet included Reform Judaism, Conservative, contemporary Orthodox and most non-affiliated Jews. The common interpretation of this agreement, identified as progressive Zionism, was established on a belief about the nation as a liberal and free – albeit ethnocentric – nation. Numerous US Jews viewed the administration of local, Syrian and Egypt's territories following the war as not permanent, assuming that an agreement was forthcoming that would ensure Jewish demographic dominance in pre-1967 Israel and regional acceptance of the nation.

Several cohorts of Jewish Americans were thus brought up with Zionism an essential component of their religious identity. The nation became a key component in Jewish learning. Yom Ha'atzmaut evolved into a religious observance. National symbols adorned religious institutions. Seasonal activities were permeated with Israeli songs and learning of the language, with Israeli guests and teaching American teenagers Israeli customs. Visits to Israel expanded and achieved record numbers through Birthright programs in 1999, providing no-cost visits to the country became available to Jewish young adults. The state affected almost the entirety of US Jewish life.

Changing Dynamics

Ironically, in these decades post-1967, US Jewish communities became adept regarding denominational coexistence. Open-mindedness and discussion across various Jewish groups grew.

Yet concerning support for Israel – there existed pluralism found its boundary. One could identify as a conservative supporter or a progressive supporter, but support for Israel as a majority-Jewish country remained unquestioned, and criticizing that perspective categorized you beyond accepted boundaries – a non-conformist, as a Jewish periodical described it in writing in 2021.

But now, during of the devastation in Gaza, famine, young victims and frustration regarding the refusal by numerous Jewish individuals who decline to acknowledge their involvement, that unity has broken down. The centrist pro-Israel view {has lost|no longer