🔗 Share this article

It has been the deadly assault of the events of October 7th, which shook Jewish communities worldwide more than any event following the founding of the Jewish state.

Among Jewish people the event proved deeply traumatic. For Israel as a nation, it was a significant embarrassment. The whole Zionist endeavor had been established on the presumption which held that the Jewish state would prevent similar tragedies occurring in the future.

A response appeared unavoidable. Yet the chosen course that Israel implemented – the obliteration of the Gaza Strip, the casualties of tens of thousands ordinary people – represented a decision. This selected path complicated the perspective of many Jewish Americans understood the attack that set it in motion, and it now complicates their commemoration of the anniversary. How does one grieve and remember a horrific event affecting their nation during devastation being inflicted upon other individuals in your name?

The Complexity of Mourning

The difficulty surrounding remembrance exists because of the reality that little unity prevails about the significance of these events. In fact, among Jewish Americans, the recent twenty-four months have witnessed the breakdown of a fifty-year agreement regarding Zionism.

The early development of pro-Israel unity across American Jewish populations dates back to writings from 1915 authored by an attorney subsequently appointed high court jurist Justice Brandeis called “The Jewish Problem; Addressing the Challenge”. However, the agreement really takes hold subsequent to the 1967 conflict that year. Previously, US Jewish communities contained a delicate yet functioning parallel existence among different factions which maintained different opinions concerning the requirement of a Jewish state – Zionists, neutral parties and opponents.

Background Information

This parallel existence endured throughout the mid-twentieth century, within remaining elements of leftist Jewish organizations, within the neutral American Jewish Committee, among the opposing religious group and other organizations. In the view of Louis Finkelstein, the chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary, pro-Israel ideology was more spiritual instead of governmental, and he prohibited singing Hatikvah, the Israeli national anthem, at JTS ordinations during that period. Additionally, Zionist ideology the main element of Modern Orthodoxy before the six-day war. Jewish identitarian alternatives remained present.

But after Israel routed adjacent nations during the 1967 conflict in 1967, seizing land comprising Palestinian territories, Gaza Strip, the Golan and Jerusalem's eastern sector, US Jewish perspective on the country underwent significant transformation. The military success, coupled with persistent concerns about another genocide, led to an increasing conviction about the nation's critical importance within Jewish identity, and a source of pride regarding its endurance. Rhetoric concerning the extraordinary aspect of the outcome and the freeing of land provided Zionism a spiritual, even messianic, importance. In that triumphant era, a significant portion of the remaining ambivalence toward Israel vanished. In the early 1970s, Commentary magazine editor Podhoretz stated: “Everyone supports Zionism today.”

The Consensus and Its Boundaries

The Zionist consensus excluded Haredi Jews – who typically thought Israel should only emerge via conventional understanding of redemption – but united Reform Judaism, Conservative, Modern Orthodox and nearly all unaffiliated individuals. The predominant version of the unified position, later termed progressive Zionism, was based on a belief about the nation as a progressive and free – though Jewish-centered – nation. Many American Jews considered the administration of Arab, Syrian and Egyptian lands after 1967 as provisional, thinking that a solution was imminent that would guarantee Jewish population majority in Israel proper and regional acceptance of the state.

Multiple generations of American Jews were thus brought up with support for Israel a fundamental aspect of their identity as Jews. The state transformed into a central part of Jewish education. Yom Ha'atzmaut became a Jewish holiday. Israeli flags were displayed in many temples. Seasonal activities were permeated with Hebrew music and education of the language, with Israeli guests educating US young people Israeli customs. Travel to Israel grew and reached new heights with Birthright Israel by 1999, providing no-cost visits to the nation was provided to young American Jews. The state affected virtually all areas of the American Jewish experience.

Evolving Situation

Paradoxically, in these decades following the war, American Jewry grew skilled in religious diversity. Acceptance and discussion among different Jewish movements grew.

Yet concerning support for Israel – that represented diversity found its boundary. You could be a right-leaning advocate or a progressive supporter, yet backing Israel as a majority-Jewish country remained unquestioned, and criticizing that perspective placed you outside the consensus – outside the community, as a Jewish periodical termed it in an essay recently.

But now, amid of the destruction of Gaza, food shortages, dead and orphaned children and outrage about the rejection of many fellow Jews who avoid admitting their responsibility, that agreement has broken down. The centrist pro-Israel view {has lost|no longer