🔗 Share this article

Marking two years after the mass murder of the events of October 7th, an event that shook Jewish communities worldwide like no other occurrence following the establishment of Israel as a nation.

Among Jewish people it was shocking. For the Israeli government, the situation represented a significant embarrassment. The entire Zionist movement was founded on the presumption that the Jewish state could stop things like this occurring in the future.

A response seemed necessary. However, the particular response that Israel implemented – the widespread destruction of the Gaza Strip, the deaths and injuries of numerous non-combatants – constituted a specific policy. This particular approach made more difficult the way numerous Jewish Americans processed the initial assault that triggered it, and it now complicates the community's commemoration of the day. How can someone mourn and commemorate a tragedy against your people in the midst of a catastrophe being inflicted upon other individuals in your name?

The Complexity of Mourning

The complexity of mourning lies in the circumstance where there is no consensus regarding what any of this means. In fact, for the American Jewish community, the last two years have seen the collapse of a decades-long unity regarding Zionism.

The origins of pro-Israel unity among American Jewry extends as far back as writings from 1915 written by a legal scholar who would later become high court jurist Justice Brandeis called “The Jewish Problem; Addressing the Challenge”. But the consensus truly solidified subsequent to the 1967 conflict during 1967. Earlier, Jewish Americans maintained a vulnerable but enduring cohabitation between groups which maintained different opinions about the need of a Jewish state – pro-Israel advocates, non-Zionists and opponents.

Previous Developments

Such cohabitation continued throughout the 1950s and 60s, through surviving aspects of socialist Jewish movements, through the non-aligned Jewish communal organization, among the opposing Jewish organization and similar institutions. In the view of Louis Finkelstein, the chancellor at JTS, Zionism was primarily theological instead of governmental, and he prohibited performance of Hatikvah, Hatikvah, at religious school events during that period. Nor were Zionism and pro-Israelism the central focus within modern Orthodox Judaism prior to the six-day war. Jewish identitarian alternatives remained present.

Yet after Israel defeated neighboring countries in that war that year, occupying territories such as Palestinian territories, Gaza, Golan Heights and Jerusalem's eastern sector, the American Jewish relationship to Israel changed dramatically. The triumphant outcome, coupled with longstanding fears of a “second Holocaust”, resulted in an increasing conviction in the country’s vital role for Jewish communities, and a source of pride for its strength. Rhetoric concerning the “miraculous” quality of the victory and the reclaiming of areas provided the Zionist project a spiritual, almost redemptive, importance. In that triumphant era, considerable previous uncertainty about Zionism vanished. In that decade, Writer Podhoretz famously proclaimed: “We are all Zionists now.”

The Consensus and Restrictions

The pro-Israel agreement did not include the ultra-Orthodox – who largely believed Israel should only be established via conventional understanding of redemption – yet included Reform, Conservative, Modern Orthodox and nearly all unaffiliated individuals. The common interpretation of this agreement, what became known as progressive Zionism, was based on the idea in Israel as a liberal and liberal – while majority-Jewish – nation. Many American Jews saw the control of Arab, Syria's and Egypt's territories post-1967 as provisional, thinking that a solution was forthcoming that would maintain Jewish population majority in pre-1967 Israel and neighbor recognition of Israel.

Several cohorts of Jewish Americans were thus brought up with support for Israel a fundamental aspect of their religious identity. The nation became a central part within religious instruction. Yom Ha'atzmaut evolved into a religious observance. Blue and white banners decorated religious institutions. Youth programs were permeated with Hebrew music and learning of contemporary Hebrew, with Israelis visiting educating US young people national traditions. Travel to Israel expanded and reached new heights via educational trips in 1999, when a free trip to Israel became available to US Jewish youth. The nation influenced nearly every aspect of the American Jewish experience.

Changing Dynamics

Paradoxically, during this period after 1967, American Jewry developed expertise at religious pluralism. Acceptance and communication among different Jewish movements increased.

Yet concerning support for Israel – that’s where tolerance ended. One could identify as a rightwing Zionist or a leftwing Zionist, but support for Israel as a majority-Jewish country was assumed, and questioning that narrative positioned you outside the consensus – outside the community, as a Jewish periodical labeled it in an essay recently.

However currently, during of the destruction in Gaza, famine, dead and orphaned children and frustration about the rejection within Jewish communities who avoid admitting their responsibility, that agreement has broken down. The moderate Zionist position {has lost|no longer