🔗 Share this article

It has been that mass murder of the events of October 7th, an event that deeply affected global Jewish populations more than any event following the establishment of the Jewish state.

Among Jewish people the event proved deeply traumatic. For the Israeli government, the situation represented deeply humiliating. The whole Zionist movement had been established on the assumption that the nation could stop such atrocities from ever happening again.

Military action appeared unavoidable. However, the particular response that Israel implemented – the widespread destruction of Gaza, the deaths and injuries of many thousands non-combatants – was a choice. This particular approach created complexity in how many Jewish Americans understood the initial assault that precipitated the response, and currently challenges the community's remembrance of the day. In what way can people honor and reflect on a horrific event against your people while simultaneously a catastrophe experienced by a different population in your name?

The Difficulty of Mourning

The complexity of mourning lies in the reality that little unity prevails as to what any of this means. Indeed, among Jewish Americans, the last two years have witnessed the collapse of a half-century-old consensus on Zionism itself.

The early development of pro-Israel unity across American Jewish populations can be traced to a 1915 essay authored by an attorney and then future Supreme Court judge Louis D. Brandeis titled “The Jewish Question; Finding Solutions”. But the consensus truly solidified after the Six-Day War in 1967. Before then, Jewish Americans housed a delicate yet functioning coexistence across various segments that had diverse perspectives regarding the necessity for a Jewish nation – Zionists, non-Zionists and opponents.

Background Information

Such cohabitation endured throughout the post-war decades, within remaining elements of socialist Jewish movements, in the non-Zionist American Jewish Committee, within the critical religious group and comparable entities. Regarding Chancellor Finkelstein, the chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary, pro-Israel ideology had greater religious significance instead of governmental, and he forbade performance of the Israeli national anthem, the Israeli national anthem, at JTS ordinations during that period. Additionally, Zionist ideology the central focus of Modern Orthodoxy before that war. Jewish identitarian alternatives existed alongside.

But after Israel overcame adjacent nations in that war in 1967, occupying territories comprising the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and Jerusalem's eastern sector, the American Jewish connection with Israel underwent significant transformation. The triumphant outcome, coupled with persistent concerns of a “second Holocaust”, led to a growing belief regarding Israel's vital role within Jewish identity, and a source of pride for its strength. Rhetoric regarding the remarkable aspect of the outcome and the reclaiming of areas provided Zionism a spiritual, almost redemptive, significance. In those heady years, a significant portion of previous uncertainty about Zionism vanished. In the early 1970s, Publication editor the commentator declared: “Everyone supports Zionism today.”

The Consensus and Its Limits

The pro-Israel agreement left out the ultra-Orthodox – who largely believed Israel should only be ushered in via conventional understanding of the messiah – yet included Reform, Conservative, contemporary Orthodox and nearly all non-affiliated Jews. The common interpretation of this agreement, what became known as liberal Zionism, was established on a belief in Israel as a democratic and liberal – while majority-Jewish – nation. Countless Jewish Americans viewed the control of local, Syrian and Egypt's territories post-1967 as provisional, thinking that a resolution would soon emerge that would ensure Jewish demographic dominance in pre-1967 Israel and Middle Eastern approval of the nation.

Multiple generations of US Jews were thus brought up with support for Israel an essential component of their Jewish identity. Israel became a central part within religious instruction. Yom Ha'atzmaut turned into a celebration. National symbols were displayed in most synagogues. Youth programs integrated with Israeli songs and education of modern Hebrew, with visitors from Israel and teaching American youth Israeli culture. Travel to Israel expanded and peaked through Birthright programs in 1999, when a free trip to the nation was offered to US Jewish youth. The state affected nearly every aspect of the American Jewish experience.

Evolving Situation

Ironically, in these decades post-1967, Jewish Americans developed expertise at religious pluralism. Tolerance and communication among different Jewish movements expanded.

Except when it came to the Israeli situation – there existed tolerance reached its limit. Individuals might align with a conservative supporter or a progressive supporter, yet backing Israel as a Jewish state was a given, and questioning that position placed you beyond accepted boundaries – an “Un-Jew”, as Tablet magazine described it in a piece in 2021.

Yet presently, under the weight of the ruin within Gaza, food shortages, child casualties and outrage over the denial within Jewish communities who decline to acknowledge their involvement, that agreement has broken down. The liberal Zionist “center” {has lost|no longer