🔗 Share this article

Two years have passed since that horrific attack of October 7, 2023, which profoundly impacted global Jewish populations more than any event following the founding of the state of Israel.

Within Jewish communities the event proved deeply traumatic. For Israel as a nation, it was deeply humiliating. The entire Zionist movement rested on the presumption which held that Israel could stop things like this from ever happening again.

Some form of retaliation was inevitable. Yet the chosen course that Israel implemented – the widespread destruction of Gaza, the deaths and injuries of tens of thousands non-combatants – was a choice. And this choice created complexity in the perspective of many Jewish Americans understood the initial assault that precipitated the response, and it now complicates the community's commemoration of that date. How does one mourn and commemorate an atrocity against your people during devastation being inflicted upon another people in your name?

The Complexity of Grieving

The challenge surrounding remembrance stems from the fact that there is no consensus as to the significance of these events. Indeed, within US Jewish circles, the last two years have experienced the breakdown of a half-century-old agreement about the Zionist movement.

The origins of Zionist agreement within US Jewish communities dates back to writings from 1915 by the lawyer subsequently appointed high court jurist Justice Brandeis titled “The Jewish Question; Finding Solutions”. However, the agreement really takes hold following the Six-Day War during 1967. Previously, Jewish Americans housed a delicate yet functioning coexistence between groups which maintained diverse perspectives regarding the requirement for Israel – Zionists, neutral parties and anti-Zionists.

Previous Developments

This parallel existence endured through the 1950s and 60s, through surviving aspects of leftist Jewish organizations, within the neutral American Jewish Committee, within the critical religious group and other organizations. In the view of Louis Finkelstein, the chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary, Zionism was primarily theological than political, and he forbade performance of Israel's anthem, Hatikvah, during seminary ceremonies in those years. Furthermore, Zionism and pro-Israelism the main element of Modern Orthodoxy before the six-day war. Jewish identitarian alternatives coexisted.

But after Israel routed adjacent nations in that war in 1967, occupying territories including Palestinian territories, Gaza, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, US Jewish connection with the country evolved considerably. The military success, along with enduring anxieties about another genocide, produced a growing belief about the nation's vital role within Jewish identity, and a source of pride for its strength. Rhetoric about the extraordinary nature of the victory and the reclaiming of territory assigned the Zionist project a spiritual, almost redemptive, importance. In that triumphant era, considerable previous uncertainty regarding Zionism disappeared. In that decade, Commentary magazine editor Norman Podhoretz declared: “Zionism unites us all.”

The Consensus and Its Limits

The unified position did not include strictly Orthodox communities – who generally maintained a nation should only be established via conventional understanding of the messiah – but united Reform Judaism, Conservative, Modern Orthodox and the majority of secular Jews. The common interpretation of the unified position, what became known as liberal Zionism, was founded on the idea about the nation as a democratic and free – while majority-Jewish – country. Numerous US Jews saw the administration of local, Syria's and Egyptian lands following the war as provisional, thinking that a solution was forthcoming that would ensure Jewish population majority in Israel proper and neighbor recognition of Israel.

Two generations of American Jews were raised with pro-Israel ideology an essential component of their religious identity. Israel became a key component within religious instruction. Israeli national day turned into a celebration. National symbols decorated religious institutions. Seasonal activities became infused with national melodies and the study of modern Hebrew, with visitors from Israel instructing American teenagers Israeli culture. Trips to the nation grew and reached new heights with Birthright Israel by 1999, providing no-cost visits to the country was provided to US Jewish youth. The state affected virtually all areas of US Jewish life.

Evolving Situation

Ironically, during this period after 1967, Jewish Americans developed expertise at religious pluralism. Acceptance and dialogue among different Jewish movements grew.

Except when it came to support for Israel – there existed diversity reached its limit. Individuals might align with a right-leaning advocate or a leftwing Zionist, yet backing Israel as a majority-Jewish country was a given, and criticizing that position placed you outside the consensus – an “Un-Jew”, as one publication labeled it in a piece in 2021.

But now, under the weight of the devastation of Gaza, food shortages, dead and orphaned children and outrage about the rejection of many fellow Jews who avoid admitting their involvement, that unity has broken down. The centrist pro-Israel view {has lost|no longer