🔗 Share this article

It has been the deadly assault of the events of October 7th, which deeply affected Jewish communities worldwide more than any event following the establishment of Israel as a nation.

Within Jewish communities it was shocking. For Israel as a nation, the situation represented a significant embarrassment. The whole Zionist project was founded on the presumption that Israel could stop things like this occurring in the future.

Some form of retaliation appeared unavoidable. Yet the chosen course undertaken by Israel – the obliteration of the Gaza Strip, the casualties of tens of thousands non-combatants – was a choice. This selected path complicated the way numerous US Jewish community members understood the attack that triggered it, and it now complicates the community's commemoration of the anniversary. How does one mourn and commemorate a tragedy affecting their nation while simultaneously devastation experienced by other individuals in your name?

The Complexity of Remembrance

The difficulty of mourning lies in the fact that no agreement exists as to the implications of these developments. In fact, among Jewish Americans, the recent twenty-four months have experienced the collapse of a half-century-old agreement about the Zionist movement.

The early development of Zionist agreement within US Jewish communities can be traced to a 1915 essay written by a legal scholar and then future Supreme Court judge Louis D. Brandeis titled “The Jewish Problem; How to Solve it”. Yet the unity became firmly established subsequent to the Six-Day War in 1967. Before then, American Jewry housed a fragile but stable coexistence among different factions which maintained different opinions about the need of a Jewish state – Zionists, neutral parties and opponents.

Previous Developments

Such cohabitation persisted throughout the mid-twentieth century, within remaining elements of socialist Jewish movements, within the neutral American Jewish Committee, in the anti-Zionist American Council for Judaism and other organizations. In the view of Louis Finkelstein, the head at JTS, pro-Israel ideology had greater religious significance instead of governmental, and he forbade performance of the Israeli national anthem, the national song, during seminary ceremonies in the early 1960s. Furthermore, support for Israel the central focus within modern Orthodox Judaism until after the six-day war. Alternative Jewish perspectives coexisted.

However following Israel overcame adjacent nations in the six-day war during that period, seizing land including the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and Jerusalem's eastern sector, US Jewish connection with Israel underwent significant transformation. Israel’s victory, combined with longstanding fears regarding repeated persecution, led to a growing belief regarding Israel's critical importance to the Jewish people, and a source of pride for its strength. Language regarding the extraordinary aspect of the success and the “liberation” of territory gave the movement a theological, potentially salvific, meaning. In that triumphant era, much of previous uncertainty toward Israel vanished. In the early 1970s, Publication editor Norman Podhoretz stated: “Zionism unites us all.”

The Agreement and Restrictions

The pro-Israel agreement left out the ultra-Orthodox – who generally maintained a Jewish state should only be ushered in via conventional understanding of the messiah – yet included Reform Judaism, Conservative, Modern Orthodox and nearly all non-affiliated Jews. The most popular form of this agreement, identified as liberal Zionism, was founded on the conviction in Israel as a progressive and liberal – while majority-Jewish – state. Many American Jews viewed the control of Palestinian, Syria's and Egyptian lands following the war as temporary, assuming that a resolution was imminent that would maintain Jewish population majority in Israel proper and neighbor recognition of the state.

Multiple generations of Jewish Americans were thus brought up with Zionism a core part of their religious identity. The nation became a central part of Jewish education. Yom Ha'atzmaut evolved into a religious observance. Blue and white banners adorned many temples. Summer camps integrated with national melodies and education of contemporary Hebrew, with Israeli guests and teaching American youth Israeli culture. Travel to Israel increased and peaked through Birthright programs in 1999, providing no-cost visits to the nation became available to young American Jews. Israel permeated nearly every aspect of the American Jewish experience.

Evolving Situation

Interestingly, throughout these years after 1967, Jewish Americans became adept at religious pluralism. Acceptance and discussion across various Jewish groups expanded.

However regarding the Israeli situation – that represented diversity reached its limit. One could identify as a conservative supporter or a liberal advocate, but support for Israel as a Jewish homeland was assumed, and criticizing that position categorized you outside the consensus – outside the community, as Tablet magazine termed it in writing recently.

Yet presently, amid of the ruin within Gaza, starvation, dead and orphaned children and anger about the rejection within Jewish communities who refuse to recognize their complicity, that consensus has collapsed. The moderate Zionist position {has lost|no longer