🔗 Share this article

It has been that horrific attack of 7 October 2023, which deeply affected Jewish communities worldwide more than any event following the creation of Israel as a nation.

Among Jewish people the event proved deeply traumatic. For Israel as a nation, the situation represented a significant embarrassment. The whole Zionist endeavor was founded on the belief which held that the Jewish state would prevent such atrocities from ever happening again.

Military action was inevitable. However, the particular response that Israel implemented – the comprehensive devastation of Gaza, the casualties of tens of thousands non-combatants – was a choice. This particular approach made more difficult how many Jewish Americans processed the initial assault that set it in motion, and presently makes difficult their observance of that date. In what way can people mourn and commemorate a horrific event targeting their community during a catastrophe being inflicted upon other individuals in your name?

The Difficulty of Grieving

The challenge of mourning stems from the fact that no agreement exists regarding what any of this means. Indeed, among Jewish Americans, this two-year period have witnessed the disintegration of a decades-long agreement on Zionism itself.

The origins of a Zionist consensus across American Jewish populations dates back to writings from 1915 by the lawyer and then future high court jurist Louis D. Brandeis called “The Jewish Problem; Addressing the Challenge”. Yet the unity truly solidified subsequent to the Six-Day War that year. Previously, Jewish Americans maintained a delicate yet functioning coexistence between groups that had different opinions about the necessity of a Jewish state – Zionists, non-Zionists and opponents.

Historical Context

That coexistence endured throughout the mid-twentieth century, within remaining elements of leftist Jewish organizations, through the non-aligned American Jewish Committee, among the opposing American Council for Judaism and comparable entities. In the view of Louis Finkelstein, the leader of the theological institution, Zionism was primarily theological instead of governmental, and he did not permit performance of the Israeli national anthem, Hatikvah, at religious school events in those years. Additionally, Zionism and pro-Israelism the centerpiece for contemporary Orthodox communities until after the 1967 conflict. Jewish identitarian alternatives coexisted.

Yet after Israel defeated neighboring countries in that war in 1967, taking control of areas such as Palestinian territories, Gaza, the Golan and Jerusalem's eastern sector, US Jewish connection with the nation changed dramatically. The triumphant outcome, along with persistent concerns about another genocide, produced an increasing conviction about the nation's essential significance within Jewish identity, and generated admiration regarding its endurance. Language concerning the remarkable quality of the success and the reclaiming of land assigned the movement a theological, almost redemptive, meaning. During that enthusiastic period, a significant portion of previous uncertainty toward Israel disappeared. In that decade, Publication editor Norman Podhoretz declared: “We are all Zionists now.”

The Agreement and Its Boundaries

The pro-Israel agreement left out Haredi Jews – who generally maintained a nation should only be ushered in via conventional understanding of the Messiah – but united Reform Judaism, Conservative, Modern Orthodox and the majority of secular Jews. The most popular form of this agreement, identified as liberal Zionism, was based on the conviction about the nation as a liberal and democratic – though Jewish-centered – state. Countless Jewish Americans saw the control of Arab, Syrian and Egyptian lands after 1967 as provisional, thinking that a resolution was forthcoming that would guarantee Jewish population majority in pre-1967 Israel and regional acceptance of the nation.

Two generations of American Jews were thus brought up with support for Israel an essential component of their Jewish identity. The nation became a key component within religious instruction. Israel’s Independence Day evolved into a religious observance. National symbols were displayed in religious institutions. Youth programs were permeated with Israeli songs and education of modern Hebrew, with visitors from Israel educating American youth national traditions. Travel to Israel grew and achieved record numbers with Birthright Israel by 1999, when a free trip to Israel was provided to Jewish young adults. The nation influenced almost the entirety of the American Jewish experience.

Changing Dynamics

Ironically, throughout these years after 1967, US Jewish communities became adept at religious pluralism. Tolerance and discussion among different Jewish movements expanded.

Yet concerning Zionism and Israel – there existed diversity reached its limit. You could be a right-leaning advocate or a liberal advocate, however endorsement of the nation as a majority-Jewish country was a given, and questioning that narrative categorized you beyond accepted boundaries – an “Un-Jew”, as a Jewish periodical termed it in a piece that year.

Yet presently, under the weight of the devastation of Gaza, starvation, child casualties and frustration about the rejection of many fellow Jews who avoid admitting their responsibility, that unity has broken down. The liberal Zionist “center” {has lost|no longer