🔗 Share this article

Marking two years after that deadly assault of the events of October 7th, which shook global Jewish populations more than any event since the founding of Israel as a nation.

For Jews the event proved deeply traumatic. For the Israeli government, it was deeply humiliating. The entire Zionist endeavor was founded on the assumption that the Jewish state would prevent similar tragedies from ever happening again.

Some form of retaliation was inevitable. However, the particular response undertaken by Israel – the obliteration of Gaza, the casualties of many thousands of civilians – constituted a specific policy. This selected path complicated the perspective of many US Jewish community members grappled with the initial assault that set it in motion, and presently makes difficult their observance of the anniversary. How does one honor and reflect on an atrocity against your people during devastation being inflicted upon other individuals connected to their community?

The Difficulty of Remembrance

The complexity in grieving exists because of the reality that little unity prevails as to the significance of these events. Actually, for the American Jewish community, the recent twenty-four months have seen the collapse of a decades-long consensus about the Zionist movement.

The origins of a Zionist consensus among American Jewry dates back to an early twentieth-century publication written by a legal scholar who would later become supreme court justice Louis D. Brandeis named “The Jewish Problem; Addressing the Challenge”. But the consensus truly solidified following the Six-Day War during 1967. Previously, American Jewry maintained a vulnerable but enduring parallel existence across various segments that had diverse perspectives about the need for a Jewish nation – pro-Israel advocates, neutral parties and anti-Zionists.

Previous Developments

That coexistence persisted through the mid-twentieth century, within remaining elements of socialist Jewish movements, through the non-aligned Jewish communal organization, among the opposing religious group and similar institutions. In the view of Louis Finkelstein, the chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary, Zionism was more spiritual than political, and he did not permit the singing of the Israeli national anthem, Hatikvah, at JTS ordinations in the early 1960s. Nor were support for Israel the main element for contemporary Orthodox communities prior to the six-day war. Alternative Jewish perspectives remained present.

However following Israel routed its neighbors in the six-day war that year, occupying territories such as Palestinian territories, Gaza, Golan Heights and Jerusalem's eastern sector, US Jewish perspective on Israel evolved considerably. The military success, coupled with enduring anxieties of a “second Holocaust”, resulted in an increasing conviction about the nation's essential significance for Jewish communities, and a source of pride in its resilience. Rhetoric regarding the “miraculous” aspect of the victory and the reclaiming of land gave the Zionist project a theological, even messianic, significance. In those heady years, considerable previous uncertainty about Zionism disappeared. In that decade, Commentary magazine editor Norman Podhoretz declared: “We are all Zionists now.”

The Unity and Restrictions

The Zionist consensus left out Haredi Jews – who largely believed a Jewish state should only emerge by a traditional rendering of the messiah – however joined Reform, Conservative, contemporary Orthodox and most unaffiliated individuals. The common interpretation of the consensus, later termed left-leaning Zionism, was established on a belief in Israel as a liberal and free – while majority-Jewish – state. Countless Jewish Americans viewed the administration of local, Syrian and Egypt's territories following the war as temporary, thinking that an agreement was forthcoming that would maintain Jewish demographic dominance in pre-1967 Israel and Middle Eastern approval of Israel.

Two generations of Jewish Americans were raised with Zionism a fundamental aspect of their Jewish identity. Israel became a central part within religious instruction. Israeli national day became a Jewish holiday. Blue and white banners were displayed in many temples. Summer camps integrated with Hebrew music and education of modern Hebrew, with visitors from Israel and teaching American teenagers Israeli culture. Travel to Israel grew and peaked with Birthright Israel in 1999, providing no-cost visits to the nation became available to US Jewish youth. The state affected almost the entirety of Jewish American identity.

Shifting Landscape

Interestingly, throughout these years following the war, American Jewry developed expertise at religious pluralism. Tolerance and discussion across various Jewish groups expanded.

However regarding Zionism and Israel – there existed pluralism ended. One could identify as a conservative supporter or a liberal advocate, yet backing Israel as a Jewish homeland was assumed, and challenging that narrative positioned you outside the consensus – outside the community, as one publication termed it in writing recently.

However currently, amid of the destruction in Gaza, starvation, young victims and anger about the rejection within Jewish communities who avoid admitting their responsibility, that unity has disintegrated. The liberal Zionist “center” {has lost|no longer