🔗 Share this article

Two years have passed since the deadly assault of the events of October 7th, an event that deeply affected world Jewry unlike anything else following the founding of Israel as a nation.

Within Jewish communities it was profoundly disturbing. For the Israeli government, it was a profound disgrace. The whole Zionist movement had been established on the presumption which held that the nation would prevent similar tragedies occurring in the future.

Some form of retaliation seemed necessary. But the response that Israel implemented – the comprehensive devastation of the Gaza Strip, the deaths and injuries of numerous non-combatants – constituted a specific policy. This particular approach created complexity in the perspective of many Jewish Americans grappled with the attack that triggered it, and presently makes difficult the community's commemoration of the anniversary. How can someone honor and reflect on a tragedy against your people while simultaneously an atrocity experienced by other individuals attributed to their identity?

The Difficulty of Remembrance

The challenge in grieving lies in the circumstance where there is no consensus about the significance of these events. Indeed, within US Jewish circles, the last two years have witnessed the collapse of a fifty-year consensus about the Zionist movement.

The early development of Zionist agreement among American Jewry extends as far back as a 1915 essay authored by an attorney subsequently appointed supreme court justice Louis Brandeis titled “The Jewish Problem; Finding Solutions”. Yet the unity truly solidified after the six-day war in 1967. Before then, Jewish Americans contained a delicate yet functioning coexistence between groups which maintained different opinions concerning the requirement for a Jewish nation – pro-Israel advocates, neutral parties and anti-Zionists.

Historical Context

This parallel existence persisted during the 1950s and 60s, within remaining elements of leftist Jewish organizations, within the neutral Jewish communal organization, within the critical Jewish organization and similar institutions. In the view of Louis Finkelstein, the leader of the Jewish Theological Seminary, Zionism was more spiritual than political, and he did not permit performance of Israel's anthem, the national song, at JTS ordinations in those years. Furthermore, Zionist ideology the central focus within modern Orthodox Judaism before that war. Different Jewish identity models remained present.

However following Israel overcame its neighbors in the six-day war in 1967, taking control of areas including the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan and Jerusalem's eastern sector, US Jewish perspective on Israel changed dramatically. The triumphant outcome, coupled with persistent concerns of a “second Holocaust”, resulted in a growing belief regarding Israel's essential significance to the Jewish people, and created pride in its resilience. Discourse concerning the extraordinary nature of the success and the freeing of areas assigned Zionism a spiritual, potentially salvific, significance. In those heady years, a significant portion of previous uncertainty regarding Zionism dissipated. In that decade, Commentary magazine editor Podhoretz declared: “Everyone supports Zionism today.”

The Agreement and Its Boundaries

The Zionist consensus did not include Haredi Jews – who generally maintained a nation should only emerge through traditional interpretation of redemption – but united Reform, Conservative Judaism, contemporary Orthodox and nearly all non-affiliated Jews. The most popular form of the unified position, what became known as left-leaning Zionism, was established on the conviction in Israel as a progressive and free – albeit ethnocentric – state. Countless Jewish Americans considered the control of Palestinian, Syria's and Egyptian lands following the war as temporary, thinking that a solution would soon emerge that would maintain Jewish demographic dominance in Israel proper and Middle Eastern approval of the nation.

Two generations of American Jews grew up with Zionism a core part of their Jewish identity. Israel became an important element in Jewish learning. Israel’s Independence Day became a Jewish holiday. Israeli flags were displayed in many temples. Summer camps were permeated with Hebrew music and education of contemporary Hebrew, with Israeli guests instructing US young people Israeli culture. Visits to Israel grew and peaked via educational trips during that year, providing no-cost visits to the country became available to young American Jews. The state affected almost the entirety of the American Jewish experience.

Changing Dynamics

Ironically, in these decades following the war, US Jewish communities developed expertise regarding denominational coexistence. Acceptance and communication among different Jewish movements grew.

Except when it came to Zionism and Israel – there existed diversity found its boundary. You could be a conservative supporter or a progressive supporter, however endorsement of the nation as a majority-Jewish country remained unquestioned, and criticizing that perspective placed you outside mainstream views – an “Un-Jew”, as Tablet magazine labeled it in a piece recently.

Yet presently, under the weight of the devastation in Gaza, food shortages, child casualties and anger over the denial of many fellow Jews who decline to acknowledge their responsibility, that agreement has collapsed. The centrist pro-Israel view {has lost|no longer