🔗 Share this article

Marking two years after the mass murder of the events of October 7th, an event that profoundly impacted world Jewry like no other occurrence since the creation of the state of Israel.

Among Jewish people the event proved shocking. For the Israeli government, it was a profound disgrace. The entire Zionist project was founded on the assumption that Israel would prevent such atrocities from ever happening again.

Some form of retaliation was inevitable. However, the particular response Israel pursued – the widespread destruction of Gaza, the killing and maiming of many thousands ordinary people – was a choice. This particular approach complicated the perspective of many Jewish Americans understood the initial assault that precipitated the response, and currently challenges their commemoration of that date. How can someone grieve and remember a horrific event against your people while simultaneously an atrocity being inflicted upon another people in your name?

The Complexity of Grieving

The challenge surrounding remembrance exists because of the circumstance where there is no consensus as to the significance of these events. Indeed, among Jewish Americans, the recent twenty-four months have witnessed the disintegration of a half-century-old agreement on Zionism itself.

The origins of Zionist agreement across American Jewish populations can be traced to writings from 1915 written by a legal scholar subsequently appointed Supreme Court judge Louis Brandeis called “The Jewish Problem; How to Solve it”. However, the agreement really takes hold after the 1967 conflict that year. Before then, American Jewry housed a delicate yet functioning parallel existence across various segments holding different opinions concerning the requirement of a Jewish state – Zionists, non-Zionists and opponents.

Previous Developments

This parallel existence endured throughout the 1950s and 60s, in remnants of Jewish socialism, in the non-Zionist US Jewish group, in the anti-Zionist religious group and other organizations. For Louis Finkelstein, the leader of the theological institution, Zionism was more spiritual than political, and he did not permit performance of the Israeli national anthem, Hatikvah, at religious school events in those years. Furthermore, Zionism and pro-Israelism the central focus for contemporary Orthodox communities before the six-day war. Alternative Jewish perspectives coexisted.

Yet after Israel overcame its neighbors during the 1967 conflict during that period, seizing land including Palestinian territories, Gaza, Golan Heights and Jerusalem's eastern sector, the American Jewish connection with Israel evolved considerably. Israel’s victory, coupled with enduring anxieties of a “second Holocaust”, produced a growing belief about the nation's essential significance for Jewish communities, and a source of pride regarding its endurance. Rhetoric regarding the remarkable quality of the victory and the freeing of land assigned the movement a theological, potentially salvific, significance. In those heady years, a significant portion of existing hesitation toward Israel dissipated. In the early 1970s, Writer Norman Podhoretz stated: “Everyone supports Zionism today.”

The Agreement and Its Boundaries

The unified position excluded strictly Orthodox communities – who largely believed a Jewish state should only be ushered in by a traditional rendering of the Messiah – however joined Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism, contemporary Orthodox and the majority of non-affiliated Jews. The most popular form of this agreement, identified as liberal Zionism, was based on the idea regarding Israel as a democratic and democratic – albeit ethnocentric – country. Numerous US Jews considered the control of Palestinian, Syria's and Egypt's territories following the war as temporary, thinking that an agreement was imminent that would guarantee Jewish demographic dominance in pre-1967 Israel and neighbor recognition of Israel.

Multiple generations of Jewish Americans were thus brought up with Zionism an essential component of their identity as Jews. The state transformed into a key component in Jewish learning. Israel’s Independence Day evolved into a religious observance. Blue and white banners were displayed in many temples. Seasonal activities were permeated with Hebrew music and learning of the language, with Israeli guests educating US young people Israeli customs. Visits to Israel increased and reached new heights with Birthright Israel in 1999, when a free trip to the country was offered to Jewish young adults. The nation influenced almost the entirety of the American Jewish experience.

Changing Dynamics

Paradoxically, throughout these years following the war, American Jewry became adept in religious diversity. Open-mindedness and communication across various Jewish groups increased.

However regarding the Israeli situation – there existed tolerance found its boundary. You could be a conservative supporter or a progressive supporter, but support for Israel as a majority-Jewish country remained unquestioned, and challenging that perspective categorized you outside the consensus – a non-conformist, as one publication labeled it in an essay recently.

However currently, during of the ruin in Gaza, food shortages, child casualties and frustration over the denial of many fellow Jews who decline to acknowledge their complicity, that agreement has collapsed. The moderate Zionist position {has lost|no longer