🔗 Share this article

Two years have passed since that horrific attack of the events of October 7th, which shook world Jewry unlike anything else following the establishment of Israel as a nation.

Among Jewish people it was deeply traumatic. For the Israeli government, the situation represented deeply humiliating. The entire Zionist movement had been established on the presumption which held that the Jewish state would ensure against such atrocities repeating.

A response seemed necessary. But the response undertaken by Israel – the widespread destruction of Gaza, the killing and maiming of many thousands non-combatants – constituted a specific policy. This particular approach made more difficult how many Jewish Americans understood the initial assault that precipitated the response, and currently challenges their observance of the day. How can someone mourn and commemorate a horrific event affecting their nation in the midst of a catastrophe done to another people attributed to their identity?

The Challenge of Mourning

The difficulty of mourning exists because of the reality that there is no consensus as to what any of this means. In fact, for the American Jewish community, the last two years have witnessed the collapse of a decades-long unity about the Zionist movement.

The early development of a Zionist consensus across American Jewish populations extends as far back as a 1915 essay written by a legal scholar and then future Supreme Court judge Louis D. Brandeis called “Jewish Issues; Addressing the Challenge”. Yet the unity really takes hold subsequent to the six-day war during 1967. Previously, Jewish Americans contained a fragile but stable coexistence among different factions which maintained diverse perspectives regarding the requirement for Israel – Zionists, neutral parties and anti-Zionists.

Historical Context

This parallel existence persisted during the post-war decades, within remaining elements of leftist Jewish organizations, through the non-aligned American Jewish Committee, within the critical Jewish organization and similar institutions. In the view of Louis Finkelstein, the leader of the theological institution, Zionism was primarily theological instead of governmental, and he prohibited performance of Hatikvah, the national song, during seminary ceremonies in the early 1960s. Furthermore, Zionism and pro-Israelism the main element of Modern Orthodoxy prior to the 1967 conflict. Different Jewish identity models remained present.

But after Israel overcame adjacent nations in that war that year, taking control of areas such as Palestinian territories, Gaza, the Golan and East Jerusalem, the American Jewish perspective on Israel evolved considerably. Israel’s victory, coupled with enduring anxieties of a “second Holocaust”, led to a developing perspective regarding Israel's critical importance to the Jewish people, and generated admiration regarding its endurance. Language regarding the remarkable nature of the outcome and the freeing of areas assigned the Zionist project a religious, almost redemptive, importance. In that triumphant era, much of existing hesitation regarding Zionism disappeared. In that decade, Writer Podhoretz famously proclaimed: “We are all Zionists now.”

The Agreement and Its Boundaries

The unified position did not include strictly Orthodox communities – who generally maintained a Jewish state should only be ushered in by a traditional rendering of redemption – but united Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism, Modern Orthodox and most unaffiliated individuals. The most popular form of the consensus, what became known as left-leaning Zionism, was based on the conviction in Israel as a liberal and democratic – albeit ethnocentric – nation. Countless Jewish Americans viewed the control of local, Syrian and Egyptian lands following the war as provisional, believing that an agreement was imminent that would ensure Jewish population majority in Israel proper and Middle Eastern approval of the nation.

Two generations of US Jews were raised with pro-Israel ideology an essential component of their identity as Jews. The nation became a central part in Jewish learning. Israeli national day evolved into a religious observance. Israeli flags were displayed in most synagogues. Seasonal activities became infused with national melodies and the study of the language, with Israelis visiting instructing American youth Israeli customs. Visits to Israel expanded and peaked with Birthright Israel by 1999, offering complimentary travel to Israel was offered to Jewish young adults. The state affected almost the entirety of US Jewish life.

Shifting Landscape

Ironically, during this period following the war, Jewish Americans grew skilled at religious pluralism. Acceptance and dialogue among different Jewish movements grew.

Yet concerning Zionism and Israel – that represented tolerance reached its limit. One could identify as a rightwing Zionist or a progressive supporter, however endorsement of the nation as a Jewish homeland was assumed, and criticizing that perspective placed you beyond accepted boundaries – an “Un-Jew”, as one publication labeled it in writing in 2021.

But now, under the weight of the ruin of Gaza, starvation, young victims and anger regarding the refusal within Jewish communities who avoid admitting their complicity, that unity has collapsed. The centrist pro-Israel view {has lost|no longer