🔗 Share this article

It has been the mass murder of October 7, 2023, an event that shook Jewish communities worldwide more than any event since the creation of the Jewish state.

Within Jewish communities the event proved profoundly disturbing. For the state of Israel, the situation represented a profound disgrace. The entire Zionist endeavor had been established on the belief that the nation would ensure against such atrocities from ever happening again.

A response was inevitable. Yet the chosen course that Israel implemented – the comprehensive devastation of Gaza, the deaths and injuries of many thousands non-combatants – was a choice. And this choice created complexity in how many Jewish Americans grappled with the initial assault that set it in motion, and presently makes difficult their observance of that date. How does one honor and reflect on an atrocity affecting their nation during devastation being inflicted upon a different population connected to their community?

The Difficulty of Mourning

The complexity surrounding remembrance exists because of the reality that no agreement exists regarding what any of this means. Indeed, among Jewish Americans, the last two years have experienced the breakdown of a fifty-year consensus on Zionism itself.

The origins of a Zionist consensus across American Jewish populations dates back to a 1915 essay authored by an attorney subsequently appointed high court jurist Louis D. Brandeis titled “The Jewish Question; How to Solve it”. However, the agreement became firmly established subsequent to the 1967 conflict in 1967. Earlier, American Jewry maintained a delicate yet functioning cohabitation among different factions that had a range of views about the need for a Jewish nation – Zionists, neutral parties and anti-Zionists.

Previous Developments

This parallel existence continued throughout the mid-twentieth century, through surviving aspects of Jewish socialism, through the non-aligned US Jewish group, within the critical American Council for Judaism and comparable entities. Regarding Chancellor Finkelstein, the chancellor at JTS, pro-Israel ideology was more spiritual rather than political, and he prohibited the singing of Hatikvah, the national song, at religious school events in those years. Nor were Zionism and pro-Israelism the main element for contemporary Orthodox communities until after the six-day war. Jewish identitarian alternatives coexisted.

However following Israel overcame adjacent nations during the 1967 conflict in 1967, occupying territories comprising Palestinian territories, Gaza, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, US Jewish relationship to Israel evolved considerably. The triumphant outcome, coupled with longstanding fears of a “second Holocaust”, led to a growing belief in the country’s vital role to the Jewish people, and generated admiration for its strength. Discourse concerning the remarkable nature of the outcome and the “liberation” of areas gave the movement a religious, potentially salvific, importance. In that triumphant era, a significant portion of existing hesitation toward Israel dissipated. In that decade, Publication editor Podhoretz stated: “We are all Zionists now.”

The Unity and Restrictions

The unified position excluded Haredi Jews – who generally maintained Israel should only emerge by a traditional rendering of the messiah – however joined Reform, Conservative, contemporary Orthodox and the majority of secular Jews. The common interpretation of the unified position, what became known as progressive Zionism, was founded on the idea in Israel as a liberal and democratic – though Jewish-centered – nation. Countless Jewish Americans considered the administration of Arab, Syria's and Egypt's territories following the war as provisional, thinking that a resolution would soon emerge that would ensure a Jewish majority in Israel proper and regional acceptance of Israel.

Two generations of Jewish Americans were thus brought up with Zionism an essential component of their religious identity. The nation became a key component within religious instruction. Israel’s Independence Day turned into a celebration. Blue and white banners adorned most synagogues. Youth programs became infused with Hebrew music and education of the language, with Israeli guests and teaching US young people Israeli culture. Visits to Israel increased and reached new heights via educational trips by 1999, providing no-cost visits to the country was offered to US Jewish youth. Israel permeated nearly every aspect of the American Jewish experience.

Evolving Situation

Paradoxically, throughout these years following the war, American Jewry became adept at religious pluralism. Open-mindedness and discussion across various Jewish groups increased.

Yet concerning the Israeli situation – that’s where tolerance found its boundary. One could identify as a rightwing Zionist or a leftwing Zionist, yet backing Israel as a Jewish homeland was a given, and challenging that position categorized you beyond accepted boundaries – a non-conformist, as a Jewish periodical described it in writing recently.

Yet presently, under the weight of the ruin of Gaza, starvation, child casualties and outrage over the denial by numerous Jewish individuals who refuse to recognize their complicity, that unity has broken down. The centrist pro-Israel view {has lost|no longer