🔗 Share this article

It has been the deadly assault of 7 October 2023, which deeply affected global Jewish populations unlike anything else following the establishment of the state of Israel.

Within Jewish communities the event proved deeply traumatic. For the state of Israel, it was a significant embarrassment. The whole Zionist movement was founded on the assumption which held that the nation could stop such atrocities from ever happening again.

A response seemed necessary. However, the particular response Israel pursued – the widespread destruction of the Gaza Strip, the casualties of numerous non-combatants – constituted a specific policy. This selected path made more difficult the way numerous US Jewish community members grappled with the initial assault that triggered it, and currently challenges their commemoration of the anniversary. How does one grieve and remember a horrific event affecting their nation during devastation being inflicted upon a different population in your name?

The Difficulty of Remembrance

The complexity in grieving stems from the reality that little unity prevails regarding what any of this means. Indeed, among Jewish Americans, the last two years have experienced the collapse of a decades-long consensus about the Zionist movement.

The beginnings of pro-Israel unity within US Jewish communities can be traced to a 1915 essay by the lawyer who would later become high court jurist Louis Brandeis titled “The Jewish Question; Addressing the Challenge”. However, the agreement really takes hold subsequent to the Six-Day War in 1967. Before then, American Jewry housed a vulnerable but enduring cohabitation across various segments that had different opinions concerning the requirement of a Jewish state – Zionists, neutral parties and opponents.

Historical Context

Such cohabitation persisted throughout the mid-twentieth century, through surviving aspects of leftist Jewish organizations, within the neutral Jewish communal organization, within the critical American Council for Judaism and other organizations. For Louis Finkelstein, the head of the theological institution, Zionism was primarily theological rather than political, and he prohibited the singing of Israel's anthem, the national song, during seminary ceremonies in those years. Additionally, support for Israel the centerpiece of Modern Orthodoxy before that war. Alternative Jewish perspectives coexisted.

But after Israel overcame adjacent nations in the six-day war that year, occupying territories including the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, the American Jewish relationship to the nation changed dramatically. The military success, coupled with longstanding fears regarding repeated persecution, produced an increasing conviction regarding Israel's vital role within Jewish identity, and a source of pride regarding its endurance. Rhetoric about the remarkable aspect of the outcome and the “liberation” of territory gave Zionism a religious, almost redemptive, meaning. In those heady years, a significant portion of the remaining ambivalence about Zionism vanished. In the early 1970s, Publication editor Norman Podhoretz stated: “We are all Zionists now.”

The Agreement and Its Boundaries

The unified position excluded strictly Orthodox communities – who typically thought a Jewish state should only be established through traditional interpretation of the Messiah – yet included Reform, Conservative, Modern Orthodox and the majority of non-affiliated Jews. The most popular form of this agreement, identified as progressive Zionism, was founded on the idea about the nation as a progressive and democratic – though Jewish-centered – country. Many American Jews saw the occupation of local, Syria's and Egyptian lands after 1967 as temporary, thinking that a solution was forthcoming that would ensure Jewish demographic dominance in Israel proper and regional acceptance of the nation.

Two generations of American Jews were raised with pro-Israel ideology a fundamental aspect of their identity as Jews. The nation became an important element of Jewish education. Yom Ha'atzmaut evolved into a religious observance. Blue and white banners were displayed in many temples. Seasonal activities integrated with Hebrew music and the study of the language, with Israelis visiting instructing American youth Israeli culture. Trips to the nation expanded and peaked through Birthright programs by 1999, providing no-cost visits to the country was offered to young American Jews. Israel permeated virtually all areas of US Jewish life.

Changing Dynamics

Ironically, during this period post-1967, Jewish Americans became adept in religious diversity. Acceptance and discussion between Jewish denominations increased.

However regarding the Israeli situation – that represented pluralism reached its limit. Individuals might align with a conservative supporter or a progressive supporter, but support for Israel as a majority-Jewish country was a given, and challenging that perspective positioned you outside the consensus – an “Un-Jew”, as one publication termed it in a piece that year.

Yet presently, under the weight of the destruction in Gaza, food shortages, dead and orphaned children and frustration regarding the refusal of many fellow Jews who avoid admitting their responsibility, that consensus has broken down. The centrist pro-Israel view {has lost|no longer