🔗 Share this article

Marking two years after the horrific attack of the events of October 7th, which shook global Jewish populations unlike anything else since the creation of Israel as a nation.

For Jews the event proved profoundly disturbing. For the state of Israel, it was a profound disgrace. The entire Zionist project rested on the belief which held that the nation would ensure against such atrocities from ever happening again.

Military action seemed necessary. However, the particular response undertaken by Israel – the widespread destruction of Gaza, the casualties of tens of thousands non-combatants – was a choice. And this choice created complexity in the way numerous US Jewish community members processed the initial assault that set it in motion, and it now complicates the community's commemoration of that date. How does one honor and reflect on a tragedy against your people in the midst of devastation done to a different population in your name?

The Complexity of Remembrance

The difficulty surrounding remembrance exists because of the fact that no agreement exists as to the implications of these developments. Actually, for the American Jewish community, the recent twenty-four months have witnessed the disintegration of a decades-long agreement regarding Zionism.

The beginnings of a Zionist consensus across American Jewish populations dates back to a 1915 essay authored by an attorney and then future high court jurist Louis D. Brandeis titled “Jewish Issues; How to Solve it”. But the consensus became firmly established after the 1967 conflict that year. Earlier, Jewish Americans contained a fragile but stable parallel existence between groups that had different opinions concerning the requirement for a Jewish nation – Zionists, non-Zionists and anti-Zionists.

Previous Developments

That coexistence continued during the mid-twentieth century, in remnants of leftist Jewish organizations, through the non-aligned US Jewish group, in the anti-Zionist Jewish organization and other organizations. In the view of Louis Finkelstein, the chancellor at JTS, the Zionist movement was primarily theological than political, and he did not permit performance of the Israeli national anthem, Hatikvah, at JTS ordinations in the early 1960s. Additionally, Zionism and pro-Israelism the central focus of Modern Orthodoxy before the 1967 conflict. Jewish identitarian alternatives coexisted.

However following Israel defeated adjacent nations during the 1967 conflict during that period, seizing land including Palestinian territories, Gaza Strip, the Golan and Jerusalem's eastern sector, the American Jewish perspective on the nation changed dramatically. Israel’s victory, along with longstanding fears regarding repeated persecution, led to a growing belief in the country’s essential significance within Jewish identity, and created pride regarding its endurance. Discourse regarding the “miraculous” nature of the victory and the “liberation” of areas provided Zionism a theological, potentially salvific, meaning. During that enthusiastic period, much of the remaining ambivalence regarding Zionism disappeared. In that decade, Publication editor Podhoretz stated: “Zionism unites us all.”

The Unity and Its Boundaries

The pro-Israel agreement excluded Haredi Jews – who largely believed a nation should only be established through traditional interpretation of the messiah – yet included Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism, contemporary Orthodox and nearly all non-affiliated Jews. The most popular form of the unified position, what became known as liberal Zionism, was founded on a belief about the nation as a democratic and free – albeit ethnocentric – nation. Many American Jews considered the occupation of Arab, Syrian and Egypt's territories following the war as not permanent, believing that a resolution was imminent that would ensure Jewish demographic dominance within Israel's original borders and regional acceptance of Israel.

Several cohorts of US Jews were thus brought up with Zionism a fundamental aspect of their identity as Jews. The nation became a key component of Jewish education. Yom Ha'atzmaut turned into a celebration. National symbols decorated religious institutions. Seasonal activities integrated with Israeli songs and the study of modern Hebrew, with Israeli guests educating American youth national traditions. Visits to Israel grew and peaked through Birthright programs during that year, offering complimentary travel to the country was offered to US Jewish youth. The state affected virtually all areas of Jewish American identity.

Evolving Situation

Paradoxically, in these decades post-1967, Jewish Americans became adept at religious pluralism. Open-mindedness and communication among different Jewish movements expanded.

However regarding support for Israel – that represented diversity found its boundary. One could identify as a rightwing Zionist or a progressive supporter, but support for Israel as a Jewish state was a given, and criticizing that narrative placed you beyond accepted boundaries – a non-conformist, as Tablet magazine termed it in writing that year.

But now, amid of the destruction of Gaza, famine, child casualties and outrage over the denial of many fellow Jews who refuse to recognize their responsibility, that consensus has collapsed. The moderate Zionist position {has lost|no longer