🔗 Share this article

Two years have passed since the mass murder of the events of October 7th, which shook Jewish communities worldwide unlike anything else following the creation of the Jewish state.

Among Jewish people it was shocking. For the Israeli government, it was a profound disgrace. The entire Zionist project rested on the belief which held that Israel would prevent such atrocities from ever happening again.

A response was inevitable. Yet the chosen course Israel pursued – the comprehensive devastation of Gaza, the deaths and injuries of many thousands non-combatants – represented a decision. This selected path created complexity in the perspective of many American Jews processed the initial assault that triggered it, and it now complicates the community's observance of the day. How can someone mourn and commemorate a horrific event against your people in the midst of devastation being inflicted upon a different population in your name?

The Difficulty of Mourning

The difficulty in grieving stems from the circumstance where little unity prevails about the implications of these developments. In fact, within US Jewish circles, the recent twenty-four months have witnessed the breakdown of a half-century-old agreement on Zionism itself.

The origins of a Zionist consensus within US Jewish communities extends as far back as an early twentieth-century publication written by a legal scholar who would later become high court jurist Louis D. Brandeis titled “Jewish Issues; How to Solve it”. However, the agreement really takes hold subsequent to the six-day war in 1967. Earlier, US Jewish communities housed a vulnerable but enduring coexistence across various segments which maintained diverse perspectives regarding the need for Israel – pro-Israel advocates, non-Zionists and anti-Zionists.

Historical Context

Such cohabitation continued throughout the 1950s and 60s, through surviving aspects of socialist Jewish movements, within the neutral US Jewish group, in the anti-Zionist Jewish organization and similar institutions. Regarding Chancellor Finkelstein, the chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary, the Zionist movement had greater religious significance rather than political, and he did not permit performance of Israel's anthem, the Israeli national anthem, at religious school events during that period. Additionally, Zionist ideology the central focus within modern Orthodox Judaism until after that war. Alternative Jewish perspectives existed alongside.

However following Israel defeated adjacent nations in that war in 1967, occupying territories such as the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and Jerusalem's eastern sector, US Jewish connection with the country underwent significant transformation. The military success, along with longstanding fears about another genocide, resulted in an increasing conviction in the country’s vital role to the Jewish people, and generated admiration regarding its endurance. Discourse concerning the remarkable nature of the victory and the freeing of territory provided the movement a theological, almost redemptive, meaning. In those heady years, considerable the remaining ambivalence regarding Zionism disappeared. In the early 1970s, Commentary magazine editor the commentator stated: “Everyone supports Zionism today.”

The Consensus and Its Boundaries

The pro-Israel agreement did not include Haredi Jews – who largely believed a nation should only be ushered in through traditional interpretation of redemption – but united Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism, Modern Orthodox and the majority of unaffiliated individuals. The predominant version of this agreement, identified as liberal Zionism, was established on the conviction about the nation as a progressive and liberal – albeit ethnocentric – state. Numerous US Jews saw the administration of Arab, Syrian and Egyptian lands following the war as provisional, assuming that a solution would soon emerge that would guarantee Jewish population majority in Israel proper and regional acceptance of the nation.

Multiple generations of US Jews grew up with Zionism a core part of their religious identity. The nation became an important element of Jewish education. Israeli national day became a Jewish holiday. National symbols adorned most synagogues. Seasonal activities were permeated with Hebrew music and the study of modern Hebrew, with Israelis visiting and teaching American teenagers Israeli customs. Visits to Israel expanded and achieved record numbers via educational trips during that year, when a free trip to Israel was provided to Jewish young adults. Israel permeated virtually all areas of Jewish American identity.

Shifting Landscape

Paradoxically, throughout these years post-1967, Jewish Americans became adept at religious pluralism. Open-mindedness and communication across various Jewish groups increased.

Yet concerning support for Israel – that’s where tolerance found its boundary. You could be a right-leaning advocate or a liberal advocate, however endorsement of the nation as a Jewish homeland was a given, and questioning that position categorized you beyond accepted boundaries – outside the community, as a Jewish periodical labeled it in a piece that year.

Yet presently, under the weight of the ruin within Gaza, food shortages, child casualties and frustration regarding the refusal of many fellow Jews who refuse to recognize their responsibility, that consensus has collapsed. The moderate Zionist position {has lost|no longer