🔗 Share this article

Two years have passed since that mass murder of 7 October 2023, an event that shook world Jewry more than any event following the creation of the state of Israel.

For Jews the event proved profoundly disturbing. For the Israeli government, it was deeply humiliating. The entire Zionist endeavor was founded on the belief that Israel could stop such atrocities from ever happening again.

Military action seemed necessary. However, the particular response Israel pursued – the widespread destruction of Gaza, the casualties of tens of thousands ordinary people – constituted a specific policy. And this choice complicated how many Jewish Americans understood the initial assault that triggered it, and currently challenges the community's observance of the day. How does one honor and reflect on a horrific event affecting their nation while simultaneously an atrocity being inflicted upon a different population in your name?

The Complexity of Grieving

The difficulty surrounding remembrance stems from the reality that no agreement exists about the implications of these developments. Actually, among Jewish Americans, the last two years have witnessed the collapse of a fifty-year consensus regarding Zionism.

The early development of Zionist agreement across American Jewish populations dates back to an early twentieth-century publication by the lawyer and then future high court jurist Louis D. Brandeis titled “Jewish Issues; Finding Solutions”. But the consensus became firmly established subsequent to the six-day war during 1967. Earlier, Jewish Americans maintained a delicate yet functioning cohabitation among different factions that had diverse perspectives regarding the necessity of a Jewish state – Zionists, non-Zionists and opponents.

Background Information

That coexistence persisted throughout the 1950s and 60s, in remnants of socialist Jewish movements, within the neutral Jewish communal organization, in the anti-Zionist religious group and other organizations. For Louis Finkelstein, the leader of the theological institution, Zionism had greater religious significance rather than political, and he prohibited singing Hatikvah, the Israeli national anthem, during seminary ceremonies in the early 1960s. Furthermore, support for Israel the main element of Modern Orthodoxy before the 1967 conflict. Different Jewish identity models existed alongside.

Yet after Israel overcame its neighbors in the six-day war in 1967, occupying territories comprising Palestinian territories, Gaza Strip, the Golan and Jerusalem's eastern sector, US Jewish relationship to the country underwent significant transformation. The military success, combined with enduring anxieties about another genocide, produced a growing belief about the nation's vital role within Jewish identity, and generated admiration regarding its endurance. Rhetoric regarding the “miraculous” aspect of the outcome and the freeing of territory gave Zionism a spiritual, almost redemptive, importance. During that enthusiastic period, considerable previous uncertainty about Zionism dissipated. During the seventies, Commentary magazine editor Norman Podhoretz stated: “We are all Zionists now.”

The Consensus and Its Boundaries

The Zionist consensus did not include strictly Orthodox communities – who generally maintained a nation should only emerge through traditional interpretation of the Messiah – yet included Reform, Conservative, contemporary Orthodox and nearly all secular Jews. The most popular form of the consensus, later termed progressive Zionism, was based on the conviction in Israel as a democratic and democratic – while majority-Jewish – nation. Countless Jewish Americans considered the control of local, Syrian and Egyptian lands after 1967 as provisional, believing that a resolution would soon emerge that would ensure Jewish demographic dominance in Israel proper and Middle Eastern approval of Israel.

Multiple generations of American Jews were thus brought up with support for Israel an essential component of their religious identity. The nation became a central part within religious instruction. Israeli national day evolved into a religious observance. Blue and white banners adorned many temples. Youth programs were permeated with national melodies and education of contemporary Hebrew, with Israelis visiting and teaching US young people Israeli customs. Travel to Israel grew and achieved record numbers via educational trips in 1999, providing no-cost visits to the country was offered to young American Jews. The nation influenced virtually all areas of US Jewish life.

Shifting Landscape

Ironically, throughout these years after 1967, American Jewry became adept at religious pluralism. Tolerance and discussion across various Jewish groups expanded.

Except when it came to the Israeli situation – there existed diversity ended. You could be a right-leaning advocate or a progressive supporter, however endorsement of the nation as a majority-Jewish country remained unquestioned, and criticizing that position categorized you beyond accepted boundaries – a non-conformist, as one publication termed it in writing recently.

But now, during of the devastation of Gaza, famine, young victims and anger over the denial by numerous Jewish individuals who refuse to recognize their complicity, that unity has collapsed. The moderate Zionist position {has lost|no longer