🔗 Share this article

It has been the horrific attack of the events of October 7th, an event that shook Jewish communities worldwide like no other occurrence following the establishment of the state of Israel.

Within Jewish communities it was shocking. For Israel as a nation, the situation represented deeply humiliating. The whole Zionist endeavor was founded on the assumption which held that the nation would ensure against things like this repeating.

Military action appeared unavoidable. Yet the chosen course Israel pursued – the comprehensive devastation of Gaza, the deaths and injuries of many thousands non-combatants – was a choice. And this choice complicated the way numerous Jewish Americans processed the initial assault that triggered it, and currently challenges their commemoration of the anniversary. How can someone honor and reflect on an atrocity targeting their community during an atrocity experienced by other individuals attributed to their identity?

The Complexity of Remembrance

The difficulty in grieving exists because of the fact that little unity prevails about what any of this means. In fact, for the American Jewish community, the last two years have seen the breakdown of a decades-long unity about the Zionist movement.

The early development of Zionist agreement among American Jewry can be traced to a 1915 essay authored by an attorney subsequently appointed high court jurist Justice Brandeis titled “The Jewish Question; Finding Solutions”. Yet the unity really takes hold following the 1967 conflict in 1967. Previously, American Jewry contained a fragile but stable coexistence across various segments which maintained diverse perspectives about the necessity of a Jewish state – Zionists, neutral parties and anti-Zionists.

Background Information

That coexistence persisted through the post-war decades, in remnants of socialist Jewish movements, within the neutral US Jewish group, in the anti-Zionist Jewish organization and similar institutions. Regarding Chancellor Finkelstein, the chancellor of the theological institution, the Zionist movement was more spiritual instead of governmental, and he did not permit performance of Hatikvah, the national song, during seminary ceremonies during that period. Nor were Zionism and pro-Israelism the centerpiece of Modern Orthodoxy until after the 1967 conflict. Different Jewish identity models coexisted.

But after Israel routed neighboring countries during the 1967 conflict during that period, taking control of areas such as Palestinian territories, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, US Jewish perspective on Israel underwent significant transformation. The military success, along with longstanding fears about another genocide, produced an increasing conviction regarding Israel's critical importance for Jewish communities, and generated admiration in its resilience. Rhetoric about the “miraculous” nature of the outcome and the reclaiming of land provided the Zionist project a theological, potentially salvific, significance. During that enthusiastic period, considerable the remaining ambivalence toward Israel dissipated. During the seventies, Publication editor Podhoretz stated: “We are all Zionists now.”

The Agreement and Its Boundaries

The pro-Israel agreement did not include strictly Orthodox communities – who typically thought Israel should only be established by a traditional rendering of the messiah – but united Reform, Conservative, contemporary Orthodox and nearly all unaffiliated individuals. The common interpretation of this agreement, identified as progressive Zionism, was established on a belief in Israel as a liberal and liberal – though Jewish-centered – country. Numerous US Jews viewed the administration of local, Syrian and Egypt's territories following the war as temporary, believing that a solution would soon emerge that would maintain Jewish demographic dominance in pre-1967 Israel and Middle Eastern approval of the state.

Two generations of American Jews were raised with pro-Israel ideology a fundamental aspect of their Jewish identity. The nation became an important element in Jewish learning. Yom Ha'atzmaut evolved into a religious observance. Israeli flags were displayed in most synagogues. Summer camps were permeated with Hebrew music and learning of modern Hebrew, with Israelis visiting instructing American youth Israeli culture. Travel to Israel expanded and achieved record numbers via educational trips during that year, providing no-cost visits to Israel became available to young American Jews. The state affected almost the entirety of the American Jewish experience.

Changing Dynamics

Ironically, during this period after 1967, US Jewish communities developed expertise in religious diversity. Tolerance and dialogue among different Jewish movements grew.

However regarding Zionism and Israel – that’s where pluralism ended. One could identify as a conservative supporter or a leftwing Zionist, but support for Israel as a majority-Jewish country was assumed, and questioning that position categorized you beyond accepted boundaries – outside the community, as a Jewish periodical labeled it in an essay that year.

However currently, during of the devastation in Gaza, famine, dead and orphaned children and outrage about the rejection within Jewish communities who avoid admitting their complicity, that unity has disintegrated. The liberal Zionist “center” {has lost|no longer