🔗 Share this article

It has been the deadly assault of 7 October 2023, which profoundly impacted world Jewry like no other occurrence following the creation of the state of Israel.

Within Jewish communities the event proved deeply traumatic. For the Israeli government, it was a profound disgrace. The entire Zionist endeavor rested on the assumption which held that the Jewish state would ensure against similar tragedies from ever happening again.

Some form of retaliation was inevitable. But the response Israel pursued – the obliteration of Gaza, the killing and maiming of many thousands of civilians – represented a decision. This particular approach made more difficult the perspective of many American Jews processed the attack that precipitated the response, and it now complicates the community's observance of the anniversary. How can someone mourn and commemorate a tragedy targeting their community while simultaneously an atrocity experienced by another people connected to their community?

The Complexity of Mourning

The complexity of mourning stems from the reality that there is no consensus about what any of this means. In fact, among Jewish Americans, the recent twenty-four months have seen the breakdown of a fifty-year consensus on Zionism itself.

The early development of Zionist agreement among American Jewry extends as far back as writings from 1915 authored by an attorney who would later become Supreme Court judge Louis D. Brandeis named “The Jewish Question; Addressing the Challenge”. However, the agreement really takes hold following the Six-Day War in 1967. Earlier, Jewish Americans maintained a delicate yet functioning cohabitation across various segments that had a range of views regarding the need for Israel – pro-Israel advocates, non-Zionists and anti-Zionists.

Historical Context

That coexistence endured throughout the mid-twentieth century, through surviving aspects of Jewish socialism, through the non-aligned US Jewish group, among the opposing Jewish organization and similar institutions. Regarding Chancellor Finkelstein, the head of the Jewish Theological Seminary, pro-Israel ideology had greater religious significance rather than political, and he prohibited singing Israel's anthem, Hatikvah, at JTS ordinations in those years. Nor were Zionist ideology the main element within modern Orthodox Judaism prior to that war. Jewish identitarian alternatives remained present.

However following Israel routed adjacent nations during the 1967 conflict in 1967, seizing land comprising the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and Jerusalem's eastern sector, US Jewish perspective on the country changed dramatically. Israel’s victory, coupled with persistent concerns of a “second Holocaust”, resulted in an increasing conviction in the country’s essential significance to the Jewish people, and a source of pride regarding its endurance. Language regarding the “miraculous” quality of the victory and the “liberation” of land gave the Zionist project a religious, even messianic, significance. During that enthusiastic period, much of existing hesitation regarding Zionism dissipated. During the seventies, Writer Podhoretz declared: “Everyone supports Zionism today.”

The Consensus and Its Boundaries

The Zionist consensus excluded strictly Orthodox communities – who largely believed a nation should only be established through traditional interpretation of the messiah – yet included Reform Judaism, Conservative, contemporary Orthodox and most secular Jews. The predominant version of the consensus, what became known as liberal Zionism, was established on the idea in Israel as a progressive and liberal – while majority-Jewish – country. Numerous US Jews considered the administration of Arab, Syrian and Egyptian lands following the war as temporary, assuming that an agreement was forthcoming that would guarantee Jewish demographic dominance in Israel proper and neighbor recognition of the state.

Two generations of Jewish Americans were thus brought up with support for Israel an essential component of their identity as Jews. The nation became a central part of Jewish education. Israel’s Independence Day turned into a celebration. Blue and white banners adorned most synagogues. Summer camps were permeated with Israeli songs and education of modern Hebrew, with visitors from Israel educating US young people Israeli customs. Visits to Israel grew and peaked through Birthright programs in 1999, offering complimentary travel to the nation became available to young American Jews. Israel permeated nearly every aspect of Jewish American identity.

Changing Dynamics

Interestingly, throughout these years following the war, US Jewish communities developed expertise in religious diversity. Acceptance and dialogue among different Jewish movements expanded.

Except when it came to the Israeli situation – that’s where pluralism found its boundary. You could be a conservative supporter or a liberal advocate, however endorsement of the nation as a Jewish homeland remained unquestioned, and challenging that perspective positioned you outside mainstream views – an “Un-Jew”, as Tablet magazine described it in a piece that year.

But now, amid of the devastation of Gaza, food shortages, dead and orphaned children and outrage over the denial by numerous Jewish individuals who avoid admitting their responsibility, that agreement has broken down. The moderate Zionist position {has lost|no longer