🔗 Share this article

Two years have passed since that horrific attack of 7 October 2023, which profoundly impacted Jewish communities worldwide like no other occurrence following the creation of Israel as a nation.

Within Jewish communities the event proved profoundly disturbing. For Israel as a nation, it was a significant embarrassment. The entire Zionist project was founded on the presumption which held that the Jewish state would ensure against such atrocities repeating.

Some form of retaliation was inevitable. But the response that Israel implemented – the widespread destruction of Gaza, the killing and maiming of tens of thousands of civilians – represented a decision. And this choice created complexity in how many Jewish Americans grappled with the October 7th events that precipitated the response, and presently makes difficult the community's observance of the anniversary. In what way can people mourn and commemorate a tragedy affecting their nation in the midst of a catastrophe being inflicted upon a different population attributed to their identity?

The Complexity of Mourning

The complexity in grieving exists because of the fact that little unity prevails regarding the implications of these developments. Indeed, within US Jewish circles, the last two years have witnessed the breakdown of a half-century-old consensus regarding Zionism.

The origins of pro-Israel unity across American Jewish populations dates back to writings from 1915 authored by an attorney subsequently appointed supreme court justice Louis Brandeis called “The Jewish Question; Finding Solutions”. Yet the unity truly solidified subsequent to the six-day war in 1967. Previously, American Jewry contained a delicate yet functioning parallel existence among different factions that had different opinions about the necessity for a Jewish nation – pro-Israel advocates, neutral parties and anti-Zionists.

Previous Developments

That coexistence persisted through the post-war decades, within remaining elements of leftist Jewish organizations, within the neutral American Jewish Committee, in the anti-Zionist religious group and similar institutions. For Louis Finkelstein, the chancellor of the theological institution, Zionism had greater religious significance instead of governmental, and he did not permit singing the Israeli national anthem, the Israeli national anthem, during seminary ceremonies during that period. Furthermore, Zionism and pro-Israelism the central focus for contemporary Orthodox communities prior to the 1967 conflict. Different Jewish identity models existed alongside.

However following Israel overcame its neighbors in the six-day war that year, taking control of areas such as Palestinian territories, Gaza Strip, the Golan and East Jerusalem, the American Jewish connection with the nation evolved considerably. The military success, along with persistent concerns of a “second Holocaust”, resulted in an increasing conviction in the country’s essential significance within Jewish identity, and generated admiration in its resilience. Discourse regarding the “miraculous” aspect of the outcome and the freeing of territory gave the Zionist project a spiritual, almost redemptive, importance. During that enthusiastic period, considerable existing hesitation about Zionism disappeared. In that decade, Writer Podhoretz stated: “We are all Zionists now.”

The Agreement and Its Limits

The pro-Israel agreement left out the ultra-Orthodox – who largely believed Israel should only emerge through traditional interpretation of redemption – however joined Reform Judaism, Conservative, contemporary Orthodox and most unaffiliated individuals. The common interpretation of this agreement, what became known as left-leaning Zionism, was based on the conviction about the nation as a liberal and free – albeit ethnocentric – nation. Countless Jewish Americans viewed the administration of local, Syria's and Egypt's territories after 1967 as temporary, assuming that a solution was imminent that would ensure a Jewish majority in Israel proper and Middle Eastern approval of Israel.

Two generations of US Jews grew up with pro-Israel ideology an essential component of their Jewish identity. The state transformed into a central part in Jewish learning. Israel’s Independence Day became a Jewish holiday. National symbols decorated many temples. Summer camps became infused with Israeli songs and the study of contemporary Hebrew, with Israelis visiting educating American youth Israeli customs. Visits to Israel expanded and peaked through Birthright programs in 1999, offering complimentary travel to the country was offered to US Jewish youth. The state affected nearly every aspect of US Jewish life.

Changing Dynamics

Paradoxically, during this period following the war, Jewish Americans grew skilled regarding denominational coexistence. Acceptance and discussion across various Jewish groups increased.

Except when it came to Zionism and Israel – that’s where pluralism reached its limit. You could be a rightwing Zionist or a liberal advocate, but support for Israel as a Jewish state was assumed, and questioning that perspective positioned you beyond accepted boundaries – a non-conformist, as a Jewish periodical termed it in an essay recently.

However currently, amid of the destruction within Gaza, famine, dead and orphaned children and outrage over the denial by numerous Jewish individuals who decline to acknowledge their involvement, that unity has collapsed. The centrist pro-Israel view {has lost|no longer