🔗 Share this article

Marking two years after that deadly assault of the events of October 7th, an event that deeply affected Jewish communities worldwide more than any event following the creation of the Jewish state.

Within Jewish communities it was shocking. For Israel as a nation, the situation represented deeply humiliating. The entire Zionist movement rested on the assumption which held that the Jewish state would prevent similar tragedies from ever happening again.

Military action seemed necessary. But the response undertaken by Israel – the obliteration of the Gaza Strip, the killing and maiming of numerous ordinary people – constituted a specific policy. This particular approach made more difficult the way numerous US Jewish community members grappled with the October 7th events that set it in motion, and currently challenges the community's remembrance of the day. How does one mourn and commemorate a horrific event against your people during devastation being inflicted upon another people in your name?

The Complexity of Mourning

The difficulty in grieving stems from the fact that no agreement exists as to what any of this means. In fact, within US Jewish circles, the recent twenty-four months have experienced the disintegration of a half-century-old consensus about the Zionist movement.

The origins of a Zionist consensus among American Jewry can be traced to a 1915 essay written by a legal scholar subsequently appointed supreme court justice Justice Brandeis titled “The Jewish Problem; Finding Solutions”. Yet the unity truly solidified following the six-day war in 1967. Before then, American Jewry maintained a vulnerable but enduring cohabitation between groups which maintained a range of views regarding the need for Israel – Zionists, neutral parties and opponents.

Historical Context

That coexistence persisted throughout the mid-twentieth century, in remnants of leftist Jewish organizations, through the non-aligned US Jewish group, among the opposing Jewish organization and comparable entities. In the view of Louis Finkelstein, the head of the theological institution, Zionism had greater religious significance rather than political, and he prohibited singing the Israeli national anthem, the national song, during seminary ceremonies in those years. Additionally, Zionist ideology the main element for contemporary Orthodox communities until after the 1967 conflict. Alternative Jewish perspectives existed alongside.

But after Israel defeated adjacent nations in that war during that period, occupying territories comprising Palestinian territories, Gaza, the Golan and East Jerusalem, US Jewish perspective on the country underwent significant transformation. Israel’s victory, along with persistent concerns about another genocide, resulted in a developing perspective regarding Israel's critical importance for Jewish communities, and generated admiration for its strength. Language about the extraordinary aspect of the success and the “liberation” of land provided Zionism a religious, potentially salvific, meaning. In those heady years, a significant portion of previous uncertainty about Zionism vanished. During the seventies, Writer the commentator declared: “We are all Zionists now.”

The Unity and Its Limits

The Zionist consensus left out strictly Orthodox communities – who largely believed a nation should only be established via conventional understanding of redemption – yet included Reform Judaism, Conservative, contemporary Orthodox and the majority of non-affiliated Jews. The most popular form of this agreement, what became known as left-leaning Zionism, was founded on a belief in Israel as a progressive and liberal – albeit ethnocentric – state. Numerous US Jews considered the occupation of local, Syria's and Egypt's territories following the war as not permanent, assuming that an agreement was forthcoming that would ensure a Jewish majority in pre-1967 Israel and neighbor recognition of the nation.

Multiple generations of American Jews were thus brought up with pro-Israel ideology a core part of their religious identity. The state transformed into a central part within religious instruction. Israel’s Independence Day evolved into a religious observance. National symbols decorated most synagogues. Seasonal activities became infused with national melodies and learning of contemporary Hebrew, with Israelis visiting educating US young people Israeli culture. Visits to Israel expanded and achieved record numbers with Birthright Israel in 1999, when a free trip to the nation was offered to US Jewish youth. The state affected almost the entirety of the American Jewish experience.

Shifting Landscape

Ironically, in these decades post-1967, Jewish Americans grew skilled in religious diversity. Acceptance and communication between Jewish denominations increased.

Yet concerning support for Israel – that’s where tolerance found its boundary. You could be a conservative supporter or a progressive supporter, however endorsement of the nation as a Jewish homeland remained unquestioned, and questioning that perspective positioned you beyond accepted boundaries – outside the community, as one publication labeled it in a piece recently.

But now, under the weight of the devastation of Gaza, food shortages, child casualties and anger about the rejection of many fellow Jews who avoid admitting their complicity, that unity has disintegrated. The centrist pro-Israel view {has lost|no longer