🔗 Share this article

Marking two years after that deadly assault of the events of October 7th, an event that shook Jewish communities worldwide more than any event since the creation of the Jewish state.

Among Jewish people it was shocking. For the Israeli government, it was a significant embarrassment. The entire Zionist endeavor had been established on the belief that the nation would ensure against such atrocities from ever happening again.

Military action seemed necessary. Yet the chosen course undertaken by Israel – the obliteration of the Gaza Strip, the deaths and injuries of tens of thousands ordinary people – represented a decision. This selected path created complexity in how many US Jewish community members grappled with the October 7th events that precipitated the response, and currently challenges their commemoration of that date. In what way can people mourn and commemorate a horrific event against your people while simultaneously a catastrophe being inflicted upon another people in your name?

The Complexity of Mourning

The challenge in grieving stems from the circumstance where little unity prevails about the implications of these developments. Actually, for the American Jewish community, this two-year period have witnessed the breakdown of a fifty-year agreement about the Zionist movement.

The origins of a Zionist consensus among American Jewry dates back to an early twentieth-century publication authored by an attorney who would later become Supreme Court judge Louis D. Brandeis called “The Jewish Problem; Finding Solutions”. However, the agreement became firmly established following the 1967 conflict during 1967. Previously, Jewish Americans housed a fragile but stable cohabitation among different factions that had diverse perspectives concerning the necessity of a Jewish state – Zionists, non-Zionists and anti-Zionists.

Historical Context

That coexistence persisted through the mid-twentieth century, in remnants of socialist Jewish movements, through the non-aligned Jewish communal organization, in the anti-Zionist American Council for Judaism and other organizations. For Louis Finkelstein, the head of the Jewish Theological Seminary, the Zionist movement was primarily theological than political, and he did not permit performance of the Israeli national anthem, the Israeli national anthem, at JTS ordinations in the early 1960s. Nor were Zionist ideology the main element within modern Orthodox Judaism prior to that war. Different Jewish identity models existed alongside.

However following Israel overcame its neighbors during the 1967 conflict in 1967, taking control of areas including the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, US Jewish relationship to the country underwent significant transformation. Israel’s victory, coupled with longstanding fears regarding repeated persecution, produced a growing belief regarding Israel's critical importance for Jewish communities, and a source of pride regarding its endurance. Rhetoric regarding the extraordinary nature of the outcome and the “liberation” of land gave the movement a religious, almost redemptive, significance. During that enthusiastic period, a significant portion of existing hesitation about Zionism vanished. During the seventies, Writer Podhoretz stated: “Zionism unites us all.”

The Consensus and Its Limits

The unified position left out the ultra-Orthodox – who largely believed a Jewish state should only emerge by a traditional rendering of redemption – yet included Reform Judaism, Conservative, Modern Orthodox and the majority of secular Jews. The common interpretation of the consensus, what became known as progressive Zionism, was established on a belief about the nation as a liberal and free – while majority-Jewish – country. Countless Jewish Americans considered the administration of Arab, Syrian and Egypt's territories post-1967 as not permanent, believing that a solution would soon emerge that would maintain a Jewish majority within Israel's original borders and neighbor recognition of the nation.

Two generations of US Jews were raised with pro-Israel ideology a core part of their religious identity. The state transformed into an important element in Jewish learning. Israeli national day became a Jewish holiday. National symbols decorated many temples. Seasonal activities became infused with Hebrew music and the study of contemporary Hebrew, with visitors from Israel and teaching US young people Israeli culture. Travel to Israel expanded and reached new heights with Birthright Israel by 1999, providing no-cost visits to Israel became available to US Jewish youth. The state affected virtually all areas of Jewish American identity.

Shifting Landscape

Interestingly, throughout these years following the war, American Jewry became adept in religious diversity. Tolerance and dialogue between Jewish denominations expanded.

Yet concerning support for Israel – that represented tolerance reached its limit. Individuals might align with a rightwing Zionist or a leftwing Zionist, however endorsement of the nation as a Jewish homeland was a given, and challenging that perspective positioned you outside mainstream views – a non-conformist, as Tablet magazine termed it in writing in 2021.

Yet presently, amid of the destruction in Gaza, starvation, child casualties and frustration regarding the refusal by numerous Jewish individuals who refuse to recognize their involvement, that agreement has disintegrated. The moderate Zionist position {has lost|no longer