🔗 Share this article

Two years have passed since that deadly assault of 7 October 2023, an event that profoundly impacted Jewish communities worldwide more than any event following the founding of Israel as a nation.

Among Jewish people it was deeply traumatic. For the Israeli government, it was a profound disgrace. The whole Zionist project had been established on the belief which held that Israel would prevent similar tragedies repeating.

Some form of retaliation seemed necessary. But the response Israel pursued – the obliteration of the Gaza Strip, the deaths and injuries of numerous non-combatants – was a choice. This selected path created complexity in the perspective of many Jewish Americans understood the October 7th events that precipitated the response, and presently makes difficult their observance of the anniversary. In what way can people mourn and commemorate a tragedy against your people in the midst of devastation experienced by other individuals connected to their community?

The Complexity of Remembrance

The challenge of mourning exists because of the circumstance where no agreement exists about what any of this means. In fact, for the American Jewish community, the recent twenty-four months have experienced the breakdown of a fifty-year consensus on Zionism itself.

The origins of pro-Israel unity within US Jewish communities can be traced to an early twentieth-century publication written by a legal scholar and then future supreme court justice Louis D. Brandeis named “The Jewish Problem; Addressing the Challenge”. But the consensus became firmly established after the six-day war in 1967. Earlier, American Jewry housed a vulnerable but enduring coexistence among different factions which maintained different opinions concerning the requirement for a Jewish nation – Zionists, neutral parties and opponents.

Previous Developments

That coexistence persisted through the 1950s and 60s, in remnants of Jewish socialism, in the non-Zionist Jewish communal organization, within the critical American Council for Judaism and similar institutions. In the view of Louis Finkelstein, the head of the theological institution, Zionism was more spiritual instead of governmental, and he prohibited performance of the Israeli national anthem, the national song, during seminary ceremonies in those years. Furthermore, Zionist ideology the central focus for contemporary Orthodox communities before that war. Different Jewish identity models remained present.

However following Israel routed its neighbors during the 1967 conflict that year, occupying territories including Palestinian territories, Gaza, the Golan and Jerusalem's eastern sector, the American Jewish perspective on the nation changed dramatically. Israel’s victory, along with persistent concerns of a “second Holocaust”, produced an increasing conviction about the nation's vital role to the Jewish people, and created pride regarding its endurance. Discourse regarding the “miraculous” quality of the victory and the freeing of land assigned the movement a spiritual, almost redemptive, significance. During that enthusiastic period, considerable the remaining ambivalence toward Israel vanished. During the seventies, Commentary magazine editor Norman Podhoretz declared: “We are all Zionists now.”

The Unity and Restrictions

The Zionist consensus did not include the ultra-Orthodox – who largely believed a Jewish state should only emerge through traditional interpretation of redemption – yet included Reform, Conservative, Modern Orthodox and the majority of non-affiliated Jews. The common interpretation of the consensus, later termed left-leaning Zionism, was based on a belief in Israel as a democratic and democratic – though Jewish-centered – country. Numerous US Jews viewed the control of Arab, Syria's and Egypt's territories following the war as provisional, believing that a solution was forthcoming that would ensure Jewish population majority in pre-1967 Israel and Middle Eastern approval of Israel.

Several cohorts of American Jews grew up with support for Israel an essential component of their identity as Jews. Israel became a central part in Jewish learning. Israeli national day evolved into a religious observance. Israeli flags decorated many temples. Summer camps integrated with Israeli songs and learning of modern Hebrew, with Israeli guests instructing American teenagers Israeli customs. Travel to Israel expanded and achieved record numbers with Birthright Israel by 1999, when a free trip to the country became available to young American Jews. Israel permeated almost the entirety of Jewish American identity.

Changing Dynamics

Paradoxically, in these decades following the war, American Jewry developed expertise regarding denominational coexistence. Acceptance and dialogue across various Jewish groups grew.

However regarding Zionism and Israel – that represented pluralism ended. One could identify as a conservative supporter or a progressive supporter, but support for Israel as a Jewish homeland was a given, and questioning that position positioned you outside the consensus – a non-conformist, as one publication described it in writing that year.

Yet presently, under the weight of the ruin within Gaza, famine, child casualties and outrage regarding the refusal of many fellow Jews who avoid admitting their complicity, that consensus has broken down. The centrist pro-Israel view {has lost|no longer