🔗 Share this article

Two years have passed since that mass murder of October 7, 2023, an event that shook Jewish communities worldwide like no other occurrence since the founding of the Jewish state.

For Jews the event proved deeply traumatic. For the state of Israel, it was a profound disgrace. The entire Zionist project had been established on the belief that the Jewish state would prevent similar tragedies occurring in the future.

Some form of retaliation seemed necessary. However, the particular response undertaken by Israel – the comprehensive devastation of Gaza, the deaths and injuries of tens of thousands of civilians – represented a decision. This particular approach created complexity in how many US Jewish community members grappled with the October 7th events that precipitated the response, and presently makes difficult their remembrance of the anniversary. How can someone honor and reflect on an atrocity targeting their community in the midst of devastation being inflicted upon a different population connected to their community?

The Complexity of Mourning

The complexity of mourning lies in the circumstance where no agreement exists as to the implications of these developments. Indeed, within US Jewish circles, this two-year period have witnessed the collapse of a decades-long unity regarding Zionism.

The origins of a Zionist consensus within US Jewish communities dates back to a 1915 essay authored by an attorney and then future supreme court justice Louis Brandeis titled “The Jewish Problem; How to Solve it”. But the consensus truly solidified after the 1967 conflict in 1967. Before then, Jewish Americans maintained a fragile but stable cohabitation among different factions that had diverse perspectives regarding the necessity for a Jewish nation – pro-Israel advocates, neutral parties and anti-Zionists.

Historical Context

Such cohabitation persisted during the post-war decades, through surviving aspects of Jewish socialism, in the non-Zionist American Jewish Committee, among the opposing religious group and similar institutions. In the view of Louis Finkelstein, the head of the theological institution, Zionism was more spiritual rather than political, and he forbade singing Israel's anthem, the Israeli national anthem, during seminary ceremonies in those years. Furthermore, Zionism and pro-Israelism the central focus for contemporary Orthodox communities prior to the 1967 conflict. Different Jewish identity models existed alongside.

However following Israel overcame its neighbors in that war that year, seizing land such as Palestinian territories, Gaza, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, the American Jewish perspective on Israel underwent significant transformation. The triumphant outcome, coupled with persistent concerns about another genocide, resulted in a growing belief in the country’s critical importance within Jewish identity, and generated admiration in its resilience. Language regarding the “miraculous” quality of the success and the “liberation” of areas provided the Zionist project a theological, even messianic, importance. In those heady years, much of the remaining ambivalence regarding Zionism disappeared. In that decade, Publication editor Norman Podhoretz stated: “Everyone supports Zionism today.”

The Agreement and Restrictions

The unified position excluded the ultra-Orthodox – who largely believed a nation should only be established via conventional understanding of the Messiah – yet included Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism, Modern Orthodox and nearly all secular Jews. The predominant version of this agreement, identified as liberal Zionism, was based on a belief about the nation as a democratic and democratic – albeit ethnocentric – country. Numerous US Jews viewed the administration of local, Syria's and Egyptian lands after 1967 as provisional, believing that a resolution 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 grew up with support for Israel a fundamental aspect of their Jewish identity. The nation became an important element in Jewish learning. Yom Ha'atzmaut became a Jewish holiday. Blue and white banners adorned most synagogues. Seasonal activities integrated with Hebrew music and learning of contemporary Hebrew, with Israeli guests instructing American youth Israeli customs. Visits to Israel expanded and reached new heights through Birthright programs by 1999, providing no-cost visits to the country was provided to young American Jews. Israel permeated virtually all areas of Jewish American identity.

Changing Dynamics

Ironically, throughout these years post-1967, American Jewry grew skilled at religious pluralism. Open-mindedness and discussion across various Jewish groups expanded.

Except when it came to the Israeli situation – that’s where diversity reached its limit. Individuals might align with a conservative supporter or a liberal advocate, but support for Israel as a Jewish homeland was a given, and challenging that narrative placed you outside mainstream views – outside the community, as Tablet magazine labeled it in writing in 2021.

However currently, under the weight of the devastation in Gaza, starvation, child casualties and anger regarding the refusal of many fellow Jews who refuse to recognize their complicity, that unity has disintegrated. The liberal Zionist “center” {has lost|no longer