🔗 Share this article

It has been the deadly assault of October 7, 2023, an event that deeply affected world Jewry like no other occurrence since the founding of the Jewish state.

Among Jewish people it was profoundly disturbing. For the state of Israel, it was a profound disgrace. The entire Zionist project had been established on the belief which held that Israel would ensure against such atrocities repeating.

A response appeared unavoidable. However, the particular response that Israel implemented – the comprehensive devastation of the Gaza Strip, the casualties of many thousands ordinary people – represented a decision. And this choice created complexity in the way numerous Jewish Americans understood the October 7th events that triggered it, and it now complicates the community's observance of the anniversary. How can someone honor and reflect on an atrocity affecting their nation during devastation being inflicted upon a different population connected to their community?

The Difficulty of Grieving

The difficulty surrounding remembrance exists because of the reality that no agreement exists regarding the implications of these developments. Actually, among Jewish Americans, this two-year period have seen the breakdown of a fifty-year agreement about the Zionist movement.

The beginnings of a Zionist consensus across American Jewish populations can be traced to a 1915 essay by the lawyer subsequently appointed supreme court justice Louis Brandeis called “The Jewish Problem; Addressing the Challenge”. Yet the unity truly solidified following the Six-Day War in 1967. Before then, US Jewish communities contained a vulnerable but enduring parallel existence among different factions that had a range of views regarding the necessity for Israel – pro-Israel advocates, non-Zionists and opponents.

Background Information

That coexistence continued throughout the post-war decades, through surviving aspects of socialist Jewish movements, within the neutral American Jewish Committee, within the critical American Council for Judaism and comparable entities. Regarding Chancellor Finkelstein, the chancellor at JTS, pro-Israel ideology had greater religious significance instead of governmental, and he forbade the singing of Hatikvah, the national song, at JTS ordinations in the early 1960s. Furthermore, Zionism and pro-Israelism the centerpiece within modern Orthodox Judaism before the 1967 conflict. Alternative Jewish perspectives existed alongside.

But after Israel defeated adjacent nations in that war that year, occupying territories including Palestinian territories, Gaza Strip, the Golan and East Jerusalem, the American Jewish connection with the nation changed dramatically. Israel’s victory, along with enduring anxieties regarding repeated persecution, produced a growing belief in the country’s critical importance to the Jewish people, and generated admiration for its strength. Discourse regarding the remarkable nature of the victory and the freeing of areas gave Zionism a theological, even messianic, meaning. In those heady years, a significant portion of existing hesitation toward Israel vanished. During the seventies, Publication editor Norman Podhoretz declared: “Zionism unites us all.”

The Agreement and Its Limits

The Zionist consensus excluded Haredi Jews – who typically thought a Jewish state should only be ushered in by a traditional rendering of redemption – however joined Reform, Conservative Judaism, contemporary Orthodox and most unaffiliated individuals. The predominant version of the consensus, what became known as progressive Zionism, was based on the conviction in Israel as a liberal and free – though Jewish-centered – nation. Countless Jewish Americans saw the occupation of Palestinian, Syrian and Egypt's territories post-1967 as provisional, thinking that a solution would soon emerge that would guarantee Jewish demographic dominance within Israel's original borders and regional acceptance of Israel.

Two generations of American Jews were raised with support for Israel an essential component of their religious identity. The state transformed into a key component within religious instruction. Israeli national day turned into a celebration. National symbols decorated religious institutions. Youth programs became infused with Hebrew music and the study of the language, with Israeli guests and teaching US young people Israeli culture. Trips to the nation increased and peaked with Birthright Israel during that year, providing no-cost visits to Israel was provided to US Jewish youth. The state affected virtually all areas of US Jewish life.

Changing Dynamics

Ironically, in these decades after 1967, American Jewry grew skilled regarding denominational coexistence. Tolerance and communication among different Jewish movements expanded.

Yet concerning support for Israel – that represented diversity found its boundary. Individuals might align with a rightwing Zionist or a progressive supporter, but support for Israel as a Jewish homeland was a given, and questioning that position categorized you outside mainstream views – an “Un-Jew”, as a Jewish periodical labeled it in writing that year.

Yet presently, under the weight of the ruin of Gaza, starvation, dead and orphaned children and outrage about the rejection within Jewish communities who avoid admitting their involvement, that unity has disintegrated. The moderate Zionist position {has lost|no longer