🔗 Share this article

Marking two years after the deadly assault of the events of October 7th, which deeply affected Jewish communities worldwide more than any event since the creation of the Jewish state.

For Jews it was deeply traumatic. For the state of Israel, it was deeply humiliating. The whole Zionist movement was founded on the presumption that Israel would ensure against such atrocities from ever happening again.

Some form of retaliation seemed necessary. Yet the chosen course undertaken by Israel – the widespread destruction of the Gaza Strip, the casualties of many thousands of civilians – was a choice. This selected path complicated the perspective of many American Jews understood the initial assault that set it in motion, and presently makes difficult their observance of the day. How can someone honor and reflect on a horrific event targeting their community in the midst of a catastrophe being inflicted upon a different population attributed to their identity?

The Complexity of Remembrance

The complexity of mourning stems from the reality that little unity prevails about the significance of these events. Actually, among Jewish Americans, the recent twenty-four months have experienced the breakdown of a fifty-year agreement about the Zionist movement.

The early development of pro-Israel unity among American Jewry can be traced to writings from 1915 written by a legal scholar and then future supreme court justice Justice Brandeis called “The Jewish Problem; How to Solve it”. However, the agreement became firmly established following the six-day war in 1967. Previously, American Jewry maintained a vulnerable but enduring cohabitation across various segments that had diverse perspectives about the necessity for Israel – pro-Israel advocates, neutral parties and opponents.

Previous Developments

That coexistence endured throughout the mid-twentieth century, through surviving aspects of socialist Jewish movements, in the non-Zionist US Jewish group, within the critical religious group and comparable entities. In the view of Louis Finkelstein, the chancellor at JTS, Zionism was primarily theological rather than political, and he prohibited the singing of Israel's anthem, the Israeli national anthem, at JTS ordinations in the early 1960s. Nor were Zionist ideology the main element for contemporary Orthodox communities until after the six-day war. Different Jewish identity models remained present.

Yet after Israel routed neighboring countries in that war that year, occupying territories including the West Bank, Gaza Strip, the Golan and East Jerusalem, the American Jewish perspective on Israel changed dramatically. The triumphant outcome, combined with longstanding fears about another genocide, led to an increasing conviction in the country’s essential significance within Jewish identity, and a source of pride regarding its endurance. Discourse concerning the remarkable quality of the victory and the “liberation” of land provided the movement a spiritual, potentially salvific, significance. In that triumphant era, much of previous uncertainty about Zionism dissipated. In that decade, Commentary magazine editor Norman Podhoretz famously proclaimed: “Everyone supports Zionism today.”

The Agreement and Restrictions

The unified position left out strictly Orthodox communities – who largely believed a nation should only be ushered in through traditional interpretation of redemption – yet included Reform, Conservative Judaism, contemporary Orthodox and nearly all non-affiliated Jews. The most popular form of the consensus, later termed progressive Zionism, was founded on the conviction regarding Israel as a liberal and free – though Jewish-centered – country. Many American Jews viewed the occupation of Palestinian, Syrian and Egypt's territories after 1967 as not permanent, believing that a solution was imminent that would guarantee Jewish demographic dominance in pre-1967 Israel and neighbor recognition of Israel.

Multiple generations of US Jews grew up with pro-Israel ideology an essential component of their religious identity. The nation became an important element within religious instruction. Israel’s Independence Day evolved into a religious observance. Blue and white banners decorated religious institutions. Seasonal activities became infused with Israeli songs and the study of the language, with visitors from Israel educating American teenagers Israeli culture. Travel to Israel grew and peaked through Birthright programs in 1999, when a free trip to the nation became available to young American Jews. Israel permeated virtually all areas of Jewish American identity.

Shifting Landscape

Interestingly, throughout these years after 1967, Jewish Americans grew skilled at religious pluralism. Open-mindedness and discussion between Jewish denominations grew.

Except when it came to the Israeli situation – that’s where pluralism reached its limit. You could be a right-leaning advocate or a leftwing Zionist, however endorsement of the nation as a Jewish state was a given, and criticizing that narrative positioned you outside mainstream views – a non-conformist, as Tablet magazine labeled it in writing that year.

But now, under the weight of the destruction in Gaza, starvation, young victims and outrage regarding the refusal within Jewish communities who avoid admitting their complicity, that unity has collapsed. The moderate Zionist position {has lost|no longer