🔗 Share this article

It has been the horrific attack of 7 October 2023, an event that shook Jewish communities worldwide like no other occurrence since the creation of Israel as a nation.

Within Jewish communities it was shocking. For the Israeli government, the situation represented deeply humiliating. The entire Zionist project had been established on the presumption which held that the Jewish state would prevent similar tragedies from ever happening again.

A response seemed necessary. However, the particular response that Israel implemented – the widespread destruction of Gaza, the killing and maiming of many thousands ordinary people – represented a decision. This particular approach complicated how many Jewish Americans understood the attack that triggered it, and presently makes difficult their remembrance of the day. How can someone grieve and remember an atrocity targeting their community while simultaneously an atrocity done to other individuals attributed to their identity?

The Challenge of Grieving

The complexity surrounding remembrance lies in the reality that there is no consensus about the significance of these events. In fact, among Jewish Americans, this two-year period have witnessed the collapse of a decades-long unity regarding Zionism.

The early development of pro-Israel unity among American Jewry dates back to an early twentieth-century publication by the lawyer and then future Supreme Court judge Louis Brandeis titled “The Jewish Problem; How to Solve it”. Yet the unity became firmly established following the 1967 conflict during 1967. Previously, Jewish Americans contained a vulnerable but enduring parallel existence among different factions that had a range of views concerning the necessity for a Jewish nation – Zionists, non-Zionists and opponents.

Historical Context

This parallel existence continued during the 1950s and 60s, within remaining elements of socialist Jewish movements, through the non-aligned American Jewish Committee, within the critical religious group and other organizations. In the view of Louis Finkelstein, the leader at JTS, Zionism was more spiritual than political, and he forbade singing Hatikvah, Hatikvah, at JTS ordinations in the early 1960s. Nor were Zionism and pro-Israelism the centerpiece of Modern Orthodoxy prior to the 1967 conflict. Alternative Jewish perspectives coexisted.

Yet after Israel routed its neighbors in that war in 1967, seizing land including Palestinian territories, Gaza, the Golan and East Jerusalem, US Jewish perspective on Israel underwent significant transformation. Israel’s victory, combined with enduring anxieties about another genocide, led to a growing belief regarding Israel's critical importance to the Jewish people, and created pride regarding its endurance. Language about the remarkable nature of the victory and the “liberation” of areas assigned the movement a theological, even messianic, importance. In those heady years, much of previous uncertainty toward Israel disappeared. During the seventies, Commentary magazine editor Norman Podhoretz declared: “Everyone supports Zionism today.”

The Consensus and Restrictions

The Zionist consensus left out Haredi Jews – who largely believed Israel should only be established by a traditional rendering of the messiah – but united Reform, Conservative Judaism, Modern Orthodox and most non-affiliated Jews. The predominant version of the unified position, identified as progressive Zionism, was founded on the conviction regarding Israel as a democratic and free – albeit ethnocentric – state. Countless Jewish Americans saw the occupation of Palestinian, Syrian and Egypt's territories following the war as temporary, believing that an agreement was forthcoming that would guarantee a Jewish majority in Israel proper and regional acceptance of Israel.

Multiple generations of Jewish Americans were raised with Zionism a core part of their religious identity. Israel became a key component of Jewish education. Israeli national day turned into a celebration. Israeli flags decorated many temples. Youth programs became infused with Israeli songs and the study of the language, with visitors from Israel and teaching US young people Israeli culture. Visits to Israel grew and peaked through Birthright programs during that year, providing no-cost visits to the nation was provided to Jewish young adults. The nation influenced almost the entirety of Jewish American identity.

Evolving Situation

Ironically, during this period after 1967, American Jewry became adept regarding denominational coexistence. Tolerance and dialogue among different Jewish movements increased.

However regarding the Israeli situation – that’s where diversity reached its limit. You could be a conservative supporter or a progressive supporter, but support for Israel as a Jewish state was assumed, and criticizing that position placed you outside the consensus – an “Un-Jew”, as Tablet magazine labeled it in writing that year.

Yet presently, during of the ruin of Gaza, starvation, child casualties and anger over the denial by numerous Jewish individuals who refuse to recognize their involvement, that unity has collapsed. The centrist pro-Israel view {has lost|no longer