🔗 Share this article

Two years have passed since the deadly assault of the events of October 7th, an event that profoundly impacted Jewish communities worldwide unlike anything else since the founding of Israel as a nation.

For Jews the event proved shocking. For the state of Israel, the situation represented deeply humiliating. The whole Zionist endeavor was founded on the belief which held that the nation would ensure against similar tragedies repeating.

Military action seemed necessary. Yet the chosen course Israel pursued – the obliteration of Gaza, the deaths and injuries of tens of thousands non-combatants – was a choice. This particular approach made more difficult the perspective of many American Jews grappled with the initial assault that set it in motion, and currently challenges their remembrance of the day. In what way can people honor and reflect on a tragedy against your people during devastation done to other individuals in your name?

The Difficulty of Mourning

The complexity in grieving lies in the fact that little unity prevails about the significance of these events. Actually, for the American Jewish community, this two-year period have seen the breakdown of a decades-long agreement about the Zionist movement.

The beginnings of a Zionist consensus within US Jewish communities can be traced to an early twentieth-century publication written by a legal scholar and then future supreme court justice Justice Brandeis called “Jewish Issues; Finding Solutions”. However, the agreement truly solidified after the Six-Day War that year. Before then, Jewish Americans contained a delicate yet functioning cohabitation among different factions holding a range of views about the need for a Jewish nation – pro-Israel advocates, non-Zionists and anti-Zionists.

Background Information

That coexistence continued throughout the 1950s and 60s, in remnants of socialist Jewish movements, through the non-aligned American Jewish Committee, within the critical American Council for Judaism and other organizations. For Louis Finkelstein, the chancellor at JTS, Zionism had greater religious significance instead of governmental, and he forbade the singing of Hatikvah, Hatikvah, at JTS ordinations in those years. Furthermore, support for Israel the centerpiece for contemporary Orthodox communities prior to that war. Alternative Jewish perspectives remained present.

But after Israel routed its neighbors in the six-day war in 1967, occupying territories comprising the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and Jerusalem's eastern sector, the American Jewish relationship to the nation underwent significant transformation. Israel’s victory, combined with persistent concerns regarding repeated persecution, led to an increasing conviction regarding Israel's critical importance to the Jewish people, and a source of pride in its resilience. Discourse concerning the remarkable nature of the victory and the reclaiming of areas gave Zionism a religious, even messianic, importance. In that triumphant era, much of the remaining ambivalence regarding Zionism dissipated. In the early 1970s, Commentary magazine editor Norman Podhoretz famously proclaimed: “Everyone supports Zionism today.”

The Agreement and Restrictions

The Zionist consensus did not include the ultra-Orthodox – who typically thought a Jewish state should only be ushered in by a traditional rendering of the Messiah – yet included Reform, Conservative Judaism, contemporary Orthodox and most secular Jews. The common interpretation of the unified position, what became known as left-leaning Zionism, was established on the conviction about the nation as a liberal and liberal – albeit ethnocentric – country. Countless Jewish Americans viewed the administration of Palestinian, Syrian and Egypt's territories after 1967 as provisional, assuming that an agreement would soon emerge that would ensure Jewish population majority within Israel's original borders and regional acceptance of Israel.

Several cohorts of US Jews grew up with Zionism a fundamental aspect of their Jewish identity. The nation became a central part within religious instruction. Israeli national day evolved into a religious observance. National symbols decorated many temples. Youth programs integrated with Hebrew music and education of modern Hebrew, with visitors from Israel educating US young people Israeli customs. Visits to Israel expanded and reached new heights through Birthright programs during that year, when a free trip to the nation became available to US Jewish youth. Israel permeated almost the entirety of Jewish American identity.

Changing Dynamics

Interestingly, during this period following the war, American Jewry developed expertise at religious pluralism. Acceptance and discussion between Jewish denominations increased.

Except when it came to the Israeli situation – that represented diversity ended. One could identify as a rightwing Zionist or a progressive supporter, but support for Israel as a majority-Jewish country remained unquestioned, and criticizing that position placed you outside mainstream views – an “Un-Jew”, as Tablet magazine labeled it in writing recently.

But now, amid of the devastation within Gaza, famine, child casualties and frustration regarding the refusal within Jewish communities who decline to acknowledge their responsibility, that consensus has broken down. The centrist pro-Israel view {has lost|no longer