🔗 Share this article

It has been the deadly assault of the events of October 7th, an event that deeply affected world Jewry more than any event following the founding of Israel as a nation.

For Jews the event proved shocking. For the Israeli government, it was deeply humiliating. The entire Zionist project was founded on the belief which held that Israel could stop such atrocities repeating.

A response was inevitable. But the response that Israel implemented – the comprehensive devastation of the Gaza Strip, the deaths and injuries of numerous non-combatants – represented a decision. And this choice complicated how many US Jewish community members understood the initial assault that set it in motion, and it now complicates the community's remembrance of the day. How can someone grieve and remember a horrific event affecting their nation during an atrocity being inflicted upon a different population attributed to their identity?

The Complexity of Mourning

The difficulty surrounding remembrance lies in the reality that little unity prevails regarding the implications of these developments. Actually, within US Jewish circles, this two-year period have experienced the disintegration of a half-century-old agreement regarding Zionism.

The origins of Zionist agreement within US Jewish communities extends as far back as a 1915 essay written by a legal scholar and then future supreme court justice Louis D. Brandeis titled “The Jewish Question; Finding Solutions”. But the consensus truly solidified following the six-day war that year. Earlier, Jewish Americans housed a delicate yet functioning parallel existence between groups which maintained different opinions about the need for Israel – pro-Israel advocates, non-Zionists and anti-Zionists.

Historical Context

This parallel existence continued through the 1950s and 60s, within remaining elements of Jewish socialism, in the non-Zionist American Jewish Committee, within the critical American Council for Judaism and similar institutions. Regarding Chancellor Finkelstein, the chancellor at JTS, pro-Israel ideology had greater religious significance than political, and he forbade singing Hatikvah, the national song, at JTS ordinations during that period. Nor were Zionist ideology the central focus for contemporary Orthodox communities prior to the six-day war. Alternative Jewish perspectives existed alongside.

However following Israel overcame adjacent nations during the 1967 conflict during that period, taking control of areas including the West Bank, Gaza Strip, the Golan and Jerusalem's eastern sector, US Jewish relationship to the nation changed dramatically. The triumphant outcome, along with persistent concerns of a “second Holocaust”, led to a developing perspective about the nation's essential significance within Jewish identity, and generated admiration regarding its endurance. Language concerning the extraordinary aspect of the success and the “liberation” of territory provided the movement a spiritual, potentially salvific, meaning. During that enthusiastic period, much of existing hesitation about Zionism disappeared. During the seventies, Writer Podhoretz famously proclaimed: “Everyone supports Zionism today.”

The Agreement and Its Limits

The unified position left out strictly Orthodox communities – who largely believed a Jewish state should only be ushered in by a traditional rendering of the Messiah – yet included Reform, Conservative, Modern Orthodox and the majority of unaffiliated individuals. The most popular form of this agreement, later termed left-leaning Zionism, was based on a belief about the nation as a democratic and democratic – while majority-Jewish – state. Countless Jewish Americans saw the administration of Palestinian, Syria's and Egyptian lands after 1967 as temporary, assuming that an agreement was forthcoming that would maintain Jewish demographic dominance within Israel's original borders and regional acceptance of the nation.

Several cohorts of American Jews were raised with Zionism a core part of their Jewish identity. The state transformed into a central part within religious instruction. Yom Ha'atzmaut evolved into a religious observance. National symbols were displayed in many temples. Youth programs were permeated with Israeli songs and education of modern Hebrew, with Israelis visiting and teaching American teenagers Israeli culture. Visits to Israel increased and reached new heights through Birthright programs in 1999, offering complimentary travel to the country was offered to US Jewish youth. Israel permeated virtually all areas of US Jewish life.

Shifting Landscape

Paradoxically, in these decades after 1967, American Jewry developed expertise in religious diversity. Acceptance and communication among different Jewish movements grew.

However regarding Zionism and Israel – there existed diversity ended. One could identify as a right-leaning advocate or a leftwing Zionist, but support for Israel as a Jewish state remained unquestioned, and criticizing that perspective placed you outside mainstream views – an “Un-Jew”, as one publication labeled it in an essay that year.

Yet presently, under the weight of the devastation within Gaza, famine, young victims and frustration regarding the refusal within Jewish communities who refuse to recognize their responsibility, that consensus has broken down. The liberal Zionist “center” {has lost|no longer