🔗 Share this article

It has been that mass murder of October 7, 2023, an event that deeply affected Jewish communities worldwide more than any event since the establishment of the state of Israel.

For Jews the event proved shocking. For the state of Israel, the situation represented deeply humiliating. The whole Zionist endeavor was founded on the belief that the nation would ensure against similar tragedies repeating.

A response was inevitable. Yet the chosen course undertaken by Israel – the widespread destruction of the Gaza Strip, the casualties of numerous non-combatants – constituted a specific policy. This particular approach made more difficult the way numerous Jewish Americans grappled with the initial assault that precipitated the response, and presently makes difficult the community's commemoration of the anniversary. How does one grieve and remember an atrocity against your people while simultaneously devastation experienced by a different population attributed to their identity?

The Difficulty of Mourning

The challenge in grieving stems from the fact that there is no consensus about the implications of these developments. Indeed, within US Jewish circles, the recent twenty-four months have seen the disintegration of a half-century-old unity about the Zionist movement.

The beginnings of pro-Israel unity among American Jewry can be traced to writings from 1915 by the lawyer and then future supreme court justice Louis D. Brandeis titled “The Jewish Problem; How to Solve it”. Yet the unity became firmly established after the Six-Day War in 1967. Previously, Jewish Americans maintained a delicate yet functioning coexistence across various segments which maintained different opinions about the requirement of a Jewish state – pro-Israel advocates, non-Zionists and anti-Zionists.

Previous Developments

Such cohabitation continued through the mid-twentieth century, within remaining elements of leftist Jewish organizations, in the non-Zionist American Jewish Committee, within the critical Jewish organization and comparable entities. For Louis Finkelstein, the chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary, pro-Israel ideology was primarily theological than political, and he forbade performance of Israel's anthem, the Israeli national anthem, at religious school events during that period. Additionally, Zionism and pro-Israelism the main element for contemporary Orthodox communities prior to the 1967 conflict. Alternative Jewish perspectives remained present.

Yet after Israel overcame its neighbors during the 1967 conflict in 1967, occupying territories such as Palestinian territories, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, the American Jewish connection with Israel evolved considerably. The military success, along with persistent concerns of a “second Holocaust”, resulted in a growing belief in the country’s critical importance within Jewish identity, and a source of pride regarding its endurance. Discourse concerning the remarkable quality of the victory and the reclaiming of land provided the movement a spiritual, potentially salvific, importance. In that triumphant era, a significant portion of the remaining ambivalence about Zionism disappeared. In the early 1970s, Commentary magazine editor the commentator stated: “Everyone supports Zionism today.”

The Agreement and Its Limits

The Zionist consensus excluded Haredi Jews – who generally maintained a nation should only emerge via conventional understanding of the messiah – but united Reform Judaism, Conservative, contemporary Orthodox and most non-affiliated Jews. The most popular form of the consensus, what became known as progressive Zionism, was founded on a belief regarding Israel as a democratic and democratic – though Jewish-centered – country. Many American Jews viewed the occupation of Palestinian, Syrian and Egyptian lands after 1967 as provisional, assuming that a resolution would soon emerge that would guarantee Jewish population majority within Israel's original borders and regional acceptance of the state.

Several cohorts of American Jews were thus brought up with support for Israel a core part of their Jewish identity. The nation became an important element within religious instruction. Yom Ha'atzmaut turned into a celebration. Blue and white banners decorated many temples. Summer camps were permeated with national melodies and education of contemporary Hebrew, with Israelis visiting educating American youth Israeli customs. Visits to Israel increased and peaked with Birthright Israel during that year, providing no-cost visits to Israel was offered to Jewish young adults. The state affected nearly every aspect of Jewish American identity.

Shifting Landscape

Ironically, throughout these years following the war, Jewish Americans developed expertise at religious pluralism. Acceptance and discussion among different Jewish movements grew.

Yet concerning support for Israel – there existed diversity ended. Individuals might align with a conservative supporter or a leftwing Zionist, yet backing Israel as a Jewish state was a given, and questioning that position categorized you outside the consensus – a non-conformist, as one publication termed it in writing recently.

But now, under the weight of the ruin in Gaza, starvation, young victims and outrage over the denial by numerous Jewish individuals who refuse to recognize their involvement, that consensus has broken down. The moderate Zionist position {has lost|no longer