🔗 Share this article

Marking two years after the horrific attack of October 7, 2023, which shook Jewish communities worldwide more than any event following the creation of the Jewish state.

Among Jewish people the event proved shocking. For Israel as a nation, it was a significant embarrassment. The whole Zionist endeavor had been established on the assumption which held that the Jewish state could stop things like this repeating.

A response seemed necessary. But the response undertaken by Israel – the comprehensive devastation of the Gaza Strip, the killing and maiming of tens of thousands ordinary people – was a choice. This particular approach created complexity in the way numerous US Jewish community members processed the October 7th events that set it in motion, and presently makes difficult their commemoration of the day. In what way can people honor and reflect on a horrific event affecting their nation during devastation done to another people attributed to their identity?

The Difficulty of Grieving

The challenge of mourning exists because of the circumstance where little unity prevails regarding what any of this means. In fact, for the American Jewish community, the recent twenty-four months have witnessed the breakdown of a decades-long consensus regarding Zionism.

The beginnings of pro-Israel unity among American Jewry dates back to a 1915 essay written by a legal scholar who would later become Supreme Court judge Louis D. Brandeis called “The Jewish Problem; Addressing the Challenge”. But the consensus really takes hold subsequent to the Six-Day War during 1967. Previously, US Jewish communities contained a vulnerable but enduring coexistence among different factions which maintained a range of views about the requirement for a Jewish nation – pro-Israel advocates, neutral parties and opponents.

Previous Developments

That coexistence continued through the post-war decades, through surviving aspects of socialist Jewish movements, within the neutral US Jewish group, in the anti-Zionist religious group and other organizations. Regarding Chancellor Finkelstein, the head of the theological institution, the Zionist movement was primarily theological rather than political, and he did not permit singing Israel's anthem, the Israeli national anthem, during seminary ceremonies in those years. Additionally, Zionism and pro-Israelism the centerpiece of Modern Orthodoxy before the 1967 conflict. Jewish identitarian alternatives remained present.

However following Israel overcame its neighbors in the six-day war in 1967, taking control of areas including Palestinian territories, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and Jerusalem's eastern sector, US Jewish perspective on the nation underwent significant transformation. The triumphant outcome, combined with persistent concerns of a “second Holocaust”, resulted in an increasing conviction about the nation's vital role to the Jewish people, and a source of pride regarding its endurance. Rhetoric about the extraordinary aspect of the success and the freeing of land provided the Zionist project a theological, even messianic, importance. In that triumphant era, much of the remaining ambivalence toward Israel disappeared. During the seventies, Publication editor Norman Podhoretz declared: “We are all Zionists now.”

The Consensus and Its Boundaries

The pro-Israel agreement left out the ultra-Orthodox – who generally maintained a Jewish state should only be ushered in through traditional interpretation of the Messiah – but united Reform, Conservative, Modern Orthodox and the majority of secular Jews. The most popular form of the consensus, what became known as left-leaning Zionism, was established on the conviction in Israel as a democratic and free – albeit ethnocentric – nation. Countless Jewish Americans viewed the occupation of Palestinian, Syrian and Egypt's territories after 1967 as provisional, assuming that a solution would soon emerge that would maintain Jewish demographic dominance in Israel proper and regional acceptance of Israel.

Several cohorts of US Jews were raised with Zionism an essential component of their Jewish identity. Israel became an important element within religious instruction. Israel’s Independence Day turned into a celebration. National symbols decorated many temples. Youth programs were permeated with Israeli songs and learning of the language, with Israelis visiting educating US young people Israeli culture. Trips to the nation increased and reached new heights through Birthright programs in 1999, offering complimentary travel to Israel was provided to young American Jews. The nation influenced nearly every aspect of the American Jewish experience.

Evolving Situation

Paradoxically, throughout these years following the war, US Jewish communities grew skilled regarding denominational coexistence. Open-mindedness and communication among different Jewish movements expanded.

Yet concerning support for Israel – that represented tolerance found its boundary. One could identify as a right-leaning advocate or a liberal advocate, yet backing Israel as a Jewish homeland remained unquestioned, and questioning that perspective categorized you outside the consensus – outside the community, as a Jewish periodical described it in writing that year.

Yet presently, during of the destruction in Gaza, food shortages, young victims and frustration about the rejection by numerous Jewish individuals who avoid admitting their involvement, that consensus has disintegrated. The centrist pro-Israel view {has lost|no longer