🔗 Share this article

Marking two years after that horrific attack of 7 October 2023, an event that shook world Jewry more than any event following the creation of Israel as a nation.

For Jews it was profoundly disturbing. For the Israeli government, the situation represented a profound disgrace. The whole Zionist movement had been established on the assumption that the nation could stop such atrocities occurring in the future.

A response seemed necessary. But the response Israel pursued – the widespread destruction of Gaza, the deaths and injuries of many thousands ordinary people – constituted a specific policy. This selected path complicated the perspective of many American Jews grappled with the initial assault that set it in motion, and presently makes difficult the community's observance of the day. In what way can people honor and reflect on an atrocity affecting their nation in the midst of an atrocity experienced by a different population attributed to their identity?

The Challenge of Grieving

The complexity of mourning lies in the reality that there is no consensus regarding the significance of these events. In fact, among Jewish Americans, this two-year period have seen the disintegration of a fifty-year unity on Zionism itself.

The origins of Zionist agreement across American Jewish populations extends as far back as a 1915 essay written by a legal scholar and then future Supreme Court judge Justice Brandeis named “Jewish Issues; Finding Solutions”. However, the agreement became firmly established after the six-day war that year. Previously, Jewish Americans contained a delicate yet functioning parallel existence across various segments that had a range of views about the need of a Jewish state – Zionists, non-Zionists and anti-Zionists.

Historical Context

Such cohabitation continued throughout the mid-twentieth century, in remnants of socialist Jewish movements, in the non-Zionist Jewish communal organization, in the anti-Zionist Jewish organization and similar institutions. For Louis Finkelstein, the chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary, Zionism was primarily theological than political, and he forbade performance of Hatikvah, Hatikvah, at religious school events during that period. Furthermore, support for Israel the centerpiece of Modern Orthodoxy until after the 1967 conflict. Alternative Jewish perspectives existed alongside.

However following Israel defeated neighboring countries in the six-day war during that period, occupying territories including Palestinian territories, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, US Jewish relationship to the country evolved considerably. Israel’s victory, coupled with enduring anxieties regarding repeated persecution, resulted in a growing belief regarding Israel's vital role within Jewish identity, and generated admiration in its resilience. Rhetoric about the “miraculous” nature of the victory and the “liberation” of areas provided the Zionist project a religious, almost redemptive, meaning. In those heady years, much of existing hesitation about Zionism disappeared. In the early 1970s, Publication editor Norman Podhoretz declared: “Zionism unites us all.”

The Consensus and Restrictions

The unified position excluded the ultra-Orthodox – who largely believed a Jewish state should only be ushered in through traditional interpretation of redemption – but united Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism, Modern Orthodox and the majority of non-affiliated Jews. The most popular form of this agreement, later termed progressive Zionism, was founded on a belief about the nation as a progressive and democratic – though Jewish-centered – nation. Many American Jews saw the control of Palestinian, Syrian and Egyptian lands after 1967 as provisional, assuming that a solution was imminent that would ensure Jewish demographic dominance in pre-1967 Israel and regional acceptance of Israel.

Several cohorts of US Jews grew up with support for Israel an essential component of their identity as Jews. The nation became an important element in Jewish learning. Israel’s Independence Day became a Jewish holiday. Israeli flags decorated most synagogues. Seasonal activities integrated with Hebrew music and the study of the language, with visitors from Israel educating American youth Israeli customs. Visits to Israel expanded and peaked with Birthright Israel in 1999, offering complimentary travel to the nation was offered to young American Jews. The state affected virtually all areas of Jewish American identity.

Shifting Landscape

Ironically, in these decades following the war, Jewish Americans became adept at religious pluralism. Acceptance and communication between Jewish denominations increased.

Except when it came to the Israeli situation – that represented pluralism ended. You could be a right-leaning advocate or a progressive supporter, however endorsement of the nation as a Jewish homeland remained unquestioned, and questioning that narrative positioned you outside mainstream views – a non-conformist, as Tablet magazine termed it in a piece that year.

Yet presently, during of the devastation in Gaza, starvation, child casualties and anger about the rejection by numerous Jewish individuals who refuse to recognize their complicity, that agreement has disintegrated. The liberal Zionist “center” {has lost|no longer