🔗 Share this article

Marking two years after that horrific attack of the events of October 7th, which deeply affected Jewish communities worldwide like no other occurrence since the creation of the Jewish state.

Within Jewish communities the event proved deeply traumatic. For the state of Israel, it was a profound disgrace. The entire Zionist endeavor rested on the belief that the nation would ensure against such atrocities from ever happening again.

Military action appeared unavoidable. However, the particular response that Israel implemented – the comprehensive devastation of Gaza, the deaths and injuries of tens of thousands of civilians – constituted a specific policy. This selected path created complexity in the perspective of many American Jews processed the attack that set it in motion, and currently challenges their commemoration of that date. How can someone honor and reflect on a horrific event targeting their community during a catastrophe done to another people connected to their community?

The Difficulty of Remembrance

The challenge in grieving lies in the fact that no agreement exists about the significance of these events. Indeed, for the American Jewish community, the last two years have witnessed the collapse of a half-century-old unity about the Zionist movement.

The origins of pro-Israel unity across American Jewish populations extends as far back as a 1915 essay authored by an attorney and then future high court jurist Louis Brandeis titled “Jewish Issues; Addressing the Challenge”. But the consensus truly solidified after the Six-Day War during 1967. Previously, US Jewish communities contained a delicate yet functioning cohabitation among different factions that had a range of views regarding the necessity for a Jewish nation – Zionists, neutral parties and anti-Zionists.

Historical Context

That coexistence endured throughout the post-war decades, within remaining elements of socialist Jewish movements, through the non-aligned American Jewish Committee, within the critical Jewish organization and similar institutions. Regarding Chancellor Finkelstein, the leader of the theological institution, Zionism had greater religious significance rather than political, and he forbade singing Hatikvah, the Israeli national anthem, at religious school events in those years. Furthermore, support for Israel the centerpiece of Modern Orthodoxy until after the 1967 conflict. Different Jewish identity models existed alongside.

Yet after Israel routed neighboring countries in the six-day war during that period, taking control of areas comprising Palestinian territories, Gaza, the Golan and Jerusalem's eastern sector, the American Jewish perspective on the country changed dramatically. The triumphant outcome, coupled with enduring anxieties regarding repeated persecution, led to a growing belief about the nation's critical importance to the Jewish people, and generated admiration regarding its endurance. Language regarding the “miraculous” nature of the outcome and the “liberation” of land gave Zionism a spiritual, potentially salvific, significance. In that triumphant era, much of the remaining ambivalence toward Israel dissipated. During the seventies, Publication editor Podhoretz famously proclaimed: “Zionism unites us all.”

The Consensus and Restrictions

The unified position did not include Haredi Jews – who typically thought Israel should only be ushered in by a traditional rendering of the messiah – but united Reform, Conservative, contemporary Orthodox and nearly all unaffiliated individuals. The predominant version of the unified position, what became known as left-leaning Zionism, was based on a belief regarding Israel as a progressive and free – while majority-Jewish – country. Countless Jewish Americans viewed the occupation of Arab, Syrian and Egyptian lands following the war as temporary, thinking that a resolution was imminent that would guarantee Jewish demographic dominance within Israel's original borders and neighbor recognition of the state.

Multiple generations of Jewish Americans were raised with pro-Israel ideology a fundamental aspect of their identity as Jews. Israel became an important element in Jewish learning. Israeli national day turned into a celebration. Blue and white banners were displayed in many temples. Seasonal activities integrated with national melodies and learning of the language, with Israeli guests educating American teenagers national traditions. Travel to Israel expanded and peaked through Birthright programs during that year, providing no-cost visits to the country became available to young American Jews. The state affected almost the entirety of US Jewish life.

Evolving Situation

Paradoxically, in these decades following the war, American Jewry developed expertise at religious pluralism. Acceptance and discussion among different Jewish movements expanded.

Yet concerning the Israeli situation – that’s where diversity found its boundary. Individuals might align with a right-leaning advocate or a leftwing Zionist, yet backing Israel as a majority-Jewish country was assumed, and questioning that position categorized you beyond accepted boundaries – outside the community, as a Jewish periodical described it in an essay in 2021.

However currently, under the weight of the ruin of Gaza, food shortages, young victims and frustration about the rejection within Jewish communities who decline to acknowledge their complicity, that agreement has collapsed. The liberal Zionist “center” {has lost|no longer