🔗 Share this article

Two years have passed since that deadly assault of the events of October 7th, which deeply affected Jewish communities worldwide more than any event following the establishment of the Jewish state.

Within Jewish communities the event proved deeply traumatic. For Israel as a nation, the situation represented a profound disgrace. The entire Zionist endeavor rested on the presumption that the nation could stop similar tragedies occurring in the future.

Military action appeared unavoidable. But the response Israel pursued – the widespread destruction of the Gaza Strip, the casualties of tens of thousands ordinary people – constituted a specific policy. And this choice made more difficult the way numerous American Jews processed the October 7th events that precipitated the response, and presently makes difficult the community's remembrance of that date. How can someone grieve and remember a horrific event affecting their nation in the midst of an atrocity experienced by other individuals in your name?

The Difficulty of Mourning

The difficulty of mourning stems from the circumstance where no agreement exists regarding what any of this means. Indeed, for the American Jewish community, this two-year period have seen the collapse of a half-century-old unity on Zionism itself.

The beginnings of Zionist agreement across American Jewish populations extends as far back as a 1915 essay written by a legal scholar and then future high court jurist Justice Brandeis called “Jewish Issues; Finding Solutions”. Yet the unity truly solidified subsequent to the six-day war during 1967. Earlier, US Jewish communities housed a fragile but stable parallel existence between groups that had a range of views regarding the requirement for Israel – pro-Israel advocates, neutral parties and anti-Zionists.

Previous Developments

That coexistence continued through the mid-twentieth century, in remnants of leftist Jewish organizations, in the non-Zionist American Jewish Committee, among the opposing religious group and other organizations. Regarding Chancellor Finkelstein, the head of the theological institution, Zionism was more spiritual than political, and he forbade performance of Hatikvah, Hatikvah, at religious school events during that period. Furthermore, support for Israel the centerpiece of Modern Orthodoxy before that war. Alternative Jewish perspectives existed alongside.

But after Israel overcame its neighbors in the six-day war that year, seizing land including Palestinian territories, Gaza, the Golan and Jerusalem's eastern sector, the American Jewish relationship to Israel evolved considerably. The military success, along with persistent concerns regarding repeated persecution, led to a growing belief regarding Israel's vital role within Jewish identity, and created pride for its strength. Language about the extraordinary nature of the outcome and the reclaiming of territory provided the movement a theological, almost redemptive, significance. In that triumphant era, much of previous uncertainty about Zionism disappeared. In the early 1970s, Publication editor Podhoretz famously proclaimed: “We are all Zionists now.”

The Agreement and Its Limits

The unified position left out strictly Orthodox communities – who largely believed a nation should only be established by a traditional rendering of redemption – yet included Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism, contemporary Orthodox and nearly all unaffiliated individuals. The most popular form of the consensus, what became known as progressive Zionism, was based on the conviction regarding Israel as a liberal and free – though Jewish-centered – country. Many American Jews saw the administration of local, Syria's and Egypt's territories post-1967 as not permanent, assuming that a solution was imminent that would ensure a Jewish majority within Israel's original borders and Middle Eastern approval of Israel.

Two generations of American Jews grew up with Zionism a core part of their religious identity. The state transformed into a central part within religious instruction. Israel’s Independence Day turned into a celebration. Blue and white banners were displayed in many temples. Summer camps were permeated with Israeli songs and the study of contemporary Hebrew, with Israelis visiting instructing US young people Israeli customs. Travel to Israel expanded and achieved record numbers with Birthright Israel in 1999, offering complimentary travel to the country became available to Jewish young adults. The state affected virtually all areas of Jewish American identity.

Evolving Situation

Paradoxically, throughout these years post-1967, American Jewry grew skilled regarding denominational coexistence. Open-mindedness and discussion among different Jewish movements grew.

Except when it came to Zionism and Israel – there existed tolerance reached its limit. One could identify as a conservative supporter or a liberal advocate, however endorsement of the nation as a Jewish homeland was assumed, and challenging that narrative positioned you outside mainstream views – outside the community, as Tablet magazine labeled it in a piece recently.

However currently, during of the ruin of Gaza, starvation, young victims and anger regarding the refusal within Jewish communities who avoid admitting their responsibility, that consensus has disintegrated. The moderate Zionist position {has lost|no longer