🔗 Share this article

Marking two years after the deadly assault of the events of October 7th, an event that profoundly impacted global Jewish populations more than any event since the establishment of Israel as a nation.

Among Jewish people the event proved profoundly disturbing. For Israel as a nation, the situation represented a profound disgrace. The whole Zionist project had been established on the presumption that the nation could stop similar tragedies from ever happening again.

A response appeared unavoidable. But the response that Israel implemented – the obliteration of the Gaza Strip, the killing and maiming of tens of thousands non-combatants – constituted a specific policy. This selected path made more difficult the way numerous US Jewish community members grappled with the attack that precipitated the response, and it now complicates their observance of the anniversary. How does one grieve and remember a tragedy affecting their nation during devastation experienced by another people in your name?

The Challenge of Remembrance

The challenge of mourning lies in the circumstance where no agreement exists about the implications of these developments. Actually, for the American Jewish community, the recent twenty-four months have witnessed the disintegration of a fifty-year consensus regarding Zionism.

The origins of Zionist agreement across American Jewish populations can be traced to writings from 1915 by the lawyer subsequently appointed supreme court justice Louis D. Brandeis called “Jewish Issues; Addressing the Challenge”. However, the agreement became firmly established after the 1967 conflict during 1967. Before then, American Jewry housed a fragile but stable cohabitation across various segments which maintained diverse perspectives concerning the necessity of a Jewish state – Zionists, non-Zionists and anti-Zionists.

Historical Context

Such cohabitation continued through the 1950s and 60s, in remnants of socialist Jewish movements, within the neutral American Jewish Committee, in the anti-Zionist religious group and similar institutions. For Louis Finkelstein, the chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary, Zionism was primarily theological rather than political, and he did not permit performance of the Israeli national anthem, the national song, during seminary ceremonies in the early 1960s. Nor were support for Israel the main element of Modern Orthodoxy prior to the six-day war. Jewish identitarian alternatives existed alongside.

However following Israel defeated neighboring countries in that war in 1967, taking control of areas including the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan and East Jerusalem, the American Jewish connection with Israel changed dramatically. The military success, combined with enduring anxieties of a “second Holocaust”, produced a growing belief regarding Israel's essential significance to the Jewish people, and generated admiration for its strength. Language about the remarkable aspect of the outcome and the freeing of land gave the movement a spiritual, almost redemptive, significance. In that triumphant era, a significant portion of the remaining ambivalence regarding Zionism dissipated. During the seventies, Commentary magazine editor the commentator declared: “Everyone supports Zionism today.”

The Consensus and Its Limits

The Zionist consensus excluded Haredi Jews – who largely believed a nation should only be ushered in by a traditional rendering of the Messiah – however joined Reform, Conservative, contemporary Orthodox and nearly all secular Jews. The common interpretation of this agreement, later termed liberal Zionism, was founded on the conviction regarding Israel as a liberal and free – albeit ethnocentric – nation. Countless Jewish Americans considered the administration of local, Syria's and Egyptian lands after 1967 as provisional, thinking that an agreement was forthcoming that would guarantee Jewish demographic dominance in pre-1967 Israel and Middle Eastern approval of the nation.

Two generations of Jewish Americans grew up with Zionism a fundamental aspect of their Jewish identity. Israel became a central part of Jewish education. Israeli national day evolved into a religious observance. Israeli flags decorated most synagogues. Summer camps integrated with national melodies and the study of contemporary Hebrew, with Israelis visiting educating American teenagers national traditions. Trips to the nation grew and reached new heights through Birthright programs during that year, when a free trip to the country was provided to US Jewish youth. Israel permeated almost the entirety of US Jewish life.

Changing Dynamics

Interestingly, during this period after 1967, Jewish Americans became adept regarding denominational coexistence. Acceptance and dialogue across various Jewish groups increased.

However regarding support for Israel – there existed pluralism ended. Individuals might align with a rightwing Zionist or a progressive supporter, yet backing Israel as a Jewish homeland remained unquestioned, and criticizing that narrative positioned you outside the consensus – a non-conformist, as one publication labeled it in writing that year.

But now, during of the destruction of Gaza, famine, child casualties and outrage over the denial of many fellow Jews who refuse to recognize their involvement, that agreement has disintegrated. The liberal Zionist “center” {has lost|no longer