🔗 Share this article

Two years have passed since that deadly assault of 7 October 2023, an event that profoundly impacted global Jewish populations like no other occurrence since the establishment of Israel as a nation.

For Jews it was shocking. For the state of Israel, the situation represented deeply humiliating. The entire Zionist endeavor rested on the assumption that the nation would prevent such atrocities repeating.

Military action was inevitable. However, the particular response undertaken by Israel – the comprehensive devastation of the Gaza Strip, the deaths and injuries of tens of thousands ordinary people – was a choice. This selected path made more difficult the way numerous American Jews understood the initial assault that set it in motion, and presently makes difficult their remembrance of that date. How does one grieve and remember a tragedy against your people during a catastrophe being inflicted upon other individuals connected to their community?

The Complexity of Grieving

The challenge in grieving exists because of the reality that no agreement exists as to the significance of these events. Actually, among Jewish Americans, this two-year period have seen the breakdown of a fifty-year consensus about the Zionist movement.

The origins of Zionist agreement among American Jewry can be traced to an early twentieth-century publication by the lawyer subsequently appointed high court jurist Louis Brandeis titled “The Jewish Question; Addressing the Challenge”. But the consensus became firmly established following the 1967 conflict during 1967. Before then, US Jewish communities contained a delicate yet functioning cohabitation between groups which maintained diverse perspectives about the requirement for Israel – Zionists, non-Zionists and opponents.

Background Information

That coexistence persisted throughout the 1950s and 60s, within remaining elements of leftist Jewish organizations, within the neutral Jewish communal organization, within the critical American Council for Judaism and other organizations. Regarding Chancellor Finkelstein, the chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary, Zionism was more spiritual rather than political, and he forbade the singing of Israel's anthem, the Israeli national anthem, during seminary ceremonies during that period. Nor were Zionism and pro-Israelism the main element of Modern Orthodoxy until after that war. Alternative Jewish perspectives existed alongside.

Yet after Israel defeated neighboring countries in that war that year, taking control of areas such as Palestinian territories, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and Jerusalem's eastern sector, the American Jewish perspective on Israel underwent significant transformation. The triumphant outcome, along with persistent concerns of a “second Holocaust”, produced a growing belief about the nation's critical importance to the Jewish people, and created pride for its strength. Discourse concerning the remarkable quality of the outcome and the reclaiming of land assigned Zionism a theological, even messianic, importance. In those heady years, much of previous uncertainty regarding Zionism dissipated. In that decade, Publication editor Norman Podhoretz declared: “We are all Zionists now.”

The Agreement and Restrictions

The pro-Israel agreement excluded the ultra-Orthodox – who largely believed a nation should only be ushered in via conventional understanding of the Messiah – yet included Reform, Conservative Judaism, contemporary Orthodox and the majority of unaffiliated individuals. The common interpretation of the unified position, what became known as liberal Zionism, was established on a belief about the nation as a liberal and democratic – though Jewish-centered – country. Many American Jews saw the occupation of local, Syrian and Egyptian lands post-1967 as temporary, believing that an agreement was forthcoming that would ensure Jewish population majority within Israel's original borders and Middle Eastern approval of the state.

Two generations of US Jews were raised with pro-Israel ideology a core part of their identity as Jews. The nation became an important element of Jewish education. Israel’s Independence Day turned into a celebration. Blue and white banners decorated many temples. Seasonal activities became infused with national melodies and education of the language, with visitors from Israel educating American teenagers Israeli customs. Travel to Israel increased and reached new heights via educational trips in 1999, offering complimentary travel to the nation was provided to young American Jews. The state affected almost the entirety of US Jewish life.

Shifting Landscape

Interestingly, throughout these years post-1967, American Jewry grew skilled at religious pluralism. Tolerance and discussion across various Jewish groups increased.

Yet concerning support for Israel – there existed pluralism found its boundary. Individuals might align with a conservative supporter or a progressive supporter, however endorsement of the nation as a Jewish homeland was assumed, and criticizing that perspective positioned you outside mainstream views – a non-conformist, as Tablet magazine described it in an essay recently.

However currently, amid of the devastation of Gaza, food shortages, child casualties and frustration about the rejection by numerous Jewish individuals who avoid admitting their involvement, that unity has collapsed. The centrist pro-Israel view {has lost|no longer