🔗 Share this article

It has been that mass murder of the events of October 7th, an event that shook Jewish communities worldwide like no other occurrence since the creation of the Jewish state.

For Jews the event proved deeply traumatic. For the state of Israel, the situation represented a profound disgrace. The whole Zionist movement was founded on the presumption that Israel could stop such atrocities repeating.

Military action appeared unavoidable. However, the particular response undertaken by Israel – the comprehensive devastation of the Gaza Strip, the killing and maiming of numerous non-combatants – represented a decision. This particular approach made more difficult the way numerous American Jews processed the attack that precipitated the response, and currently challenges the community's commemoration of that date. How can someone honor and reflect on a horrific event against your people during devastation done to a different population connected to their community?

The Challenge of Remembrance

The complexity surrounding remembrance exists because of the reality that there is no consensus about what any of this means. In fact, within US Jewish circles, the recent twenty-four months have witnessed the breakdown of a half-century-old agreement about the Zionist movement.

The origins of Zionist agreement within US Jewish communities can be traced to a 1915 essay by the lawyer and then future Supreme Court judge Louis D. Brandeis titled “Jewish Issues; Addressing the Challenge”. But the consensus became firmly established following the 1967 conflict in 1967. Before then, American Jewry contained a delicate yet functioning cohabitation between groups that had diverse perspectives about the necessity for a Jewish nation – Zionists, non-Zionists and opponents.

Historical Context

This parallel existence endured throughout the 1950s and 60s, within remaining elements of Jewish socialism, within the neutral US Jewish group, within the critical Jewish organization and similar institutions. For Louis Finkelstein, the chancellor at JTS, Zionism was primarily theological rather than political, and he did not permit performance of Israel's anthem, the Israeli national anthem, during seminary ceremonies in those years. Additionally, support for Israel the central focus within modern Orthodox Judaism prior to the six-day war. Alternative Jewish perspectives coexisted.

However following Israel routed adjacent nations during the 1967 conflict that year, occupying territories comprising the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and Jerusalem's eastern sector, the American Jewish perspective on the country evolved considerably. The military success, along with longstanding fears of a “second Holocaust”, resulted in an increasing conviction about the nation's essential significance for Jewish communities, and a source of pride regarding its endurance. Language concerning the “miraculous” quality of the victory and the reclaiming of land provided the movement a spiritual, even messianic, importance. During that enthusiastic period, a significant portion of previous uncertainty about Zionism disappeared. During the seventies, Publication editor Podhoretz stated: “We are all Zionists now.”

The Unity and Restrictions

The Zionist consensus did not include the ultra-Orthodox – who generally maintained a Jewish state should only be ushered in by a traditional rendering of the Messiah – yet included Reform Judaism, Conservative, contemporary Orthodox and nearly all secular Jews. The most popular form of the consensus, what became known as liberal Zionism, was founded on the conviction in Israel as a progressive and liberal – while majority-Jewish – country. Many American Jews saw the occupation of Arab, Syria's and Egyptian lands following the war as temporary, thinking that an agreement was forthcoming that would ensure Jewish population majority within Israel's original borders and neighbor recognition of the state.

Two generations of US Jews were raised with support for Israel a core part of their religious identity. Israel became a central part of Jewish education. Yom Ha'atzmaut turned into a celebration. Blue and white banners decorated religious institutions. Summer camps became infused with Israeli songs and the study of contemporary Hebrew, with Israeli guests instructing American teenagers Israeli culture. Travel to Israel expanded and peaked with Birthright Israel during that year, when a free trip to Israel became available to young American Jews. The nation influenced virtually all areas of the American Jewish experience.

Shifting Landscape

Paradoxically, in these decades after 1967, US Jewish communities grew skilled regarding denominational coexistence. Tolerance and discussion across various Jewish groups increased.

Yet concerning Zionism and Israel – that’s where diversity reached its limit. One could identify as a rightwing Zionist or a liberal advocate, but support for Israel as a majority-Jewish country was assumed, and challenging that perspective placed you outside the consensus – an “Un-Jew”, as one publication described it in a piece that year.

However currently, amid of the destruction in Gaza, starvation, dead and orphaned children and outrage regarding the refusal by numerous Jewish individuals who refuse to recognize their involvement, that consensus has disintegrated. The moderate Zionist position {has lost|no longer