🔗 Share this article

Two years have passed since that horrific attack of October 7, 2023, an event that deeply affected Jewish communities worldwide unlike anything else following the creation of the state of Israel.

For Jews it was deeply traumatic. For the state of Israel, it was a significant embarrassment. The entire Zionist endeavor was founded on the belief which held that Israel would ensure against such atrocities occurring in the future.

Some form of retaliation appeared unavoidable. But the response undertaken by Israel – the widespread destruction of Gaza, the killing and maiming of numerous of civilians – represented a decision. This selected path created complexity in how many American Jews grappled with the initial assault that precipitated the response, and it now complicates their observance of that date. How does one honor and reflect on a tragedy targeting their community while simultaneously an atrocity being inflicted upon another people attributed to their identity?

The Challenge of Grieving

The difficulty in grieving exists because of the circumstance where no agreement exists about the implications of these developments. Indeed, among Jewish Americans, the last two years have witnessed the collapse of a decades-long agreement on Zionism itself.

The beginnings of a Zionist consensus among American Jewry can be traced to a 1915 essay by the lawyer subsequently appointed Supreme Court judge Justice Brandeis named “The Jewish Problem; Addressing the Challenge”. However, the agreement really takes hold subsequent to the Six-Day War that year. Earlier, Jewish Americans contained a delicate yet functioning parallel existence among different factions which maintained a range of views regarding the requirement for Israel – pro-Israel advocates, non-Zionists and opponents.

Previous Developments

Such cohabitation endured throughout the mid-twentieth century, in remnants of Jewish socialism, within the neutral American Jewish Committee, among the opposing religious group and other organizations. In the view of Louis Finkelstein, the leader at JTS, pro-Israel ideology was primarily theological instead of governmental, and he forbade singing the Israeli national anthem, the national song, at JTS ordinations during that period. Additionally, Zionist ideology the main element of Modern Orthodoxy before the 1967 conflict. Different Jewish identity models remained present.

But after Israel defeated its neighbors in that war in 1967, occupying territories including the West Bank, Gaza Strip, the Golan and Jerusalem's eastern sector, US Jewish relationship to the country evolved considerably. The military success, coupled with persistent concerns of a “second Holocaust”, led to a developing perspective in the country’s critical importance to the Jewish people, and created pride regarding its endurance. Rhetoric about the extraordinary nature of the victory and the reclaiming of areas assigned the Zionist project a spiritual, even messianic, importance. In that triumphant era, much of the remaining ambivalence regarding Zionism vanished. During the seventies, Writer the commentator stated: “Everyone supports Zionism today.”

The Unity and Restrictions

The pro-Israel agreement excluded Haredi Jews – who typically thought Israel should only emerge by a traditional rendering of the messiah – but united Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism, Modern Orthodox and nearly all secular Jews. The predominant version of the consensus, identified as liberal Zionism, was established on a belief about the nation as a democratic and free – though Jewish-centered – state. Numerous US Jews considered the occupation of local, Syria's and Egyptian lands following the war as not permanent, thinking that a solution was imminent that would maintain a Jewish majority in pre-1967 Israel and regional acceptance of the state.

Two generations of American Jews grew up with support for Israel an essential component of their religious identity. The nation became an important element in Jewish learning. Israel’s Independence Day turned into a celebration. Blue and white banners adorned religious institutions. Summer camps integrated with Israeli songs and education of the language, with Israeli guests and teaching American teenagers Israeli customs. Trips to the nation increased and reached new heights with Birthright Israel by 1999, when a free trip to the country was provided to Jewish young adults. The state affected virtually all areas of the American Jewish experience.

Changing Dynamics

Interestingly, during this period post-1967, American Jewry grew skilled regarding denominational coexistence. Open-mindedness and communication between Jewish denominations expanded.

Except when it came to support for Israel – that’s where pluralism found its boundary. Individuals might align with a conservative supporter or a liberal advocate, but support for Israel as a majority-Jewish country was assumed, and questioning that position categorized you outside the consensus – outside the community, as Tablet magazine described it in a piece that year.

But now, amid of the destruction within Gaza, food shortages, dead and orphaned children and outrage over the denial by numerous Jewish individuals who decline to acknowledge their complicity, that unity has collapsed. The centrist pro-Israel view {has lost|no longer