🔗 Share this article

Two years have passed since that deadly assault of the events of October 7th, an event that shook world Jewry unlike anything else following the creation of the Jewish state.

Among Jewish people the event proved shocking. For the Israeli government, the situation represented a profound disgrace. The whole Zionist project was founded on the belief which held that the nation would prevent similar tragedies repeating.

Some form of retaliation appeared unavoidable. However, the particular response Israel pursued – the obliteration of the Gaza Strip, the killing and maiming of many thousands ordinary people – represented a decision. And this choice complicated the way numerous American Jews understood the attack that triggered it, and currently challenges their commemoration of the day. How does one mourn and commemorate an atrocity targeting their community while simultaneously an atrocity being inflicted upon other individuals in your name?

The Complexity of Mourning

The complexity in grieving exists because of the reality that there is no consensus as to the significance of these events. Indeed, among Jewish Americans, this two-year period have witnessed the collapse of a fifty-year agreement on Zionism itself.

The early development of Zionist agreement among American Jewry dates back to a 1915 essay written by a legal scholar and then future Supreme Court judge Louis D. Brandeis called “Jewish Issues; Addressing the Challenge”. Yet the unity truly solidified after the Six-Day War in 1967. Earlier, US Jewish communities contained a vulnerable but enduring cohabitation among different factions that had different opinions about the need for Israel – Zionists, neutral parties and opponents.

Historical Context

Such cohabitation continued during the post-war decades, within remaining elements of socialist Jewish movements, in the non-Zionist US Jewish group, within the critical Jewish organization and similar institutions. Regarding Chancellor Finkelstein, the leader at JTS, pro-Israel ideology was primarily theological instead of governmental, and he did not permit singing the Israeli national anthem, the national song, at JTS ordinations in those years. Furthermore, Zionist ideology the central focus of Modern Orthodoxy before the 1967 conflict. Different Jewish identity models remained present.

But after Israel routed its neighbors in the six-day war during that period, taking control of areas comprising the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan and Jerusalem's eastern sector, the American Jewish connection with the nation changed dramatically. The triumphant outcome, combined with longstanding fears of a “second Holocaust”, resulted in an increasing conviction in the country’s vital role to the Jewish people, and generated admiration for its strength. Rhetoric concerning the remarkable aspect of the success and the “liberation” of land provided the Zionist project a religious, almost redemptive, meaning. In those heady years, considerable existing hesitation toward Israel vanished. During the seventies, Writer the commentator declared: “Zionism unites us all.”

The Agreement and Its Boundaries

The unified position excluded strictly Orthodox communities – who typically thought a Jewish state should only emerge by a traditional rendering of the Messiah – but united Reform, Conservative Judaism, Modern Orthodox and most secular Jews. The common interpretation of the consensus, what became known as left-leaning Zionism, was established on the conviction regarding Israel as a liberal and democratic – albeit ethnocentric – country. Numerous US Jews considered the control of local, Syria's and Egyptian lands post-1967 as not permanent, thinking that an agreement would soon emerge that would guarantee Jewish demographic dominance in pre-1967 Israel and regional acceptance of the state.

Several cohorts of US Jews were thus brought up with support for Israel an essential component of their religious identity. The state transformed into an important element within religious instruction. Israel’s Independence Day evolved into a religious observance. Blue and white banners were displayed in many temples. Summer camps became infused with Hebrew music and education of contemporary Hebrew, with Israeli guests and teaching American youth Israeli customs. Visits to Israel expanded and reached new heights with Birthright Israel during that year, providing no-cost visits to the nation was provided to Jewish young adults. The state affected virtually all areas of the American Jewish experience.

Shifting Landscape

Ironically, in these decades following the war, American Jewry developed expertise at religious pluralism. Open-mindedness and discussion across various Jewish groups expanded.

Yet concerning the Israeli situation – there existed tolerance ended. You could be a rightwing Zionist or a progressive supporter, however endorsement of the nation as a Jewish homeland remained unquestioned, and challenging that perspective positioned you outside mainstream views – outside the community, as one publication termed it in a piece recently.

But now, during of the ruin in Gaza, food shortages, young victims and frustration over the denial within Jewish communities who refuse to recognize their responsibility, that unity has broken down. The moderate Zionist position {has lost|no longer