🔗 Share this article

Two years have passed since the mass murder of 7 October 2023, which deeply affected Jewish communities worldwide more than any event following the establishment of Israel as a nation.

Among Jewish people it was shocking. For the Israeli government, it was a significant embarrassment. The whole Zionist movement rested on the belief which held that the nation would ensure against such atrocities from ever happening again.

Some form of retaliation seemed necessary. However, the particular response Israel pursued – the obliteration of Gaza, the casualties of numerous non-combatants – was a choice. This particular approach complicated the perspective of many American Jews grappled with the initial assault that triggered it, and currently challenges the community's commemoration of that date. How does one honor and reflect on an atrocity affecting their nation during a catastrophe being inflicted upon another people connected to their community?

The Complexity of Remembrance

The challenge in grieving stems from the reality that there is no consensus as to the significance of these events. Indeed, among Jewish Americans, this two-year period have witnessed the disintegration of a decades-long agreement about the Zionist movement.

The beginnings of Zionist agreement within US Jewish communities can be traced to a 1915 essay authored by an attorney and then future supreme court justice Justice Brandeis titled “The Jewish Question; Addressing the Challenge”. But the consensus became firmly established following the 1967 conflict that year. Before then, US Jewish communities contained a fragile but stable parallel existence across various segments which maintained different opinions about the necessity for Israel – Zionists, neutral parties and anti-Zionists.

Historical Context

Such cohabitation persisted throughout the 1950s and 60s, within remaining elements of Jewish socialism, within the neutral Jewish communal organization, among the opposing religious group and other organizations. In the view of Louis Finkelstein, the leader of the Jewish Theological Seminary, pro-Israel ideology had greater religious significance instead of governmental, and he forbade performance of Hatikvah, the Israeli national anthem, at religious school events in the early 1960s. Additionally, support for Israel the central focus of Modern Orthodoxy before the 1967 conflict. Jewish identitarian alternatives coexisted.

However following Israel overcame neighboring countries during the 1967 conflict that year, taking control of areas comprising Palestinian territories, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, the American Jewish relationship to Israel changed dramatically. Israel’s victory, along with enduring anxieties regarding repeated persecution, resulted in an increasing conviction in the country’s critical importance to the Jewish people, and a source of pride for its strength. Discourse about the extraordinary quality of the outcome and the freeing of territory gave the Zionist project a religious, potentially salvific, meaning. In those heady years, much of existing hesitation toward Israel vanished. In that decade, Commentary magazine editor Podhoretz famously proclaimed: “Everyone supports Zionism today.”

The Unity and Its Boundaries

The pro-Israel agreement did not include strictly Orthodox communities – who generally maintained a Jewish state should only be ushered in through traditional interpretation of the messiah – yet included Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism, Modern Orthodox and the majority of non-affiliated Jews. The most popular form of the consensus, identified as progressive Zionism, was founded on the idea regarding Israel as a liberal and free – though Jewish-centered – nation. Numerous US Jews viewed the control of local, Syrian and Egypt's territories after 1967 as temporary, assuming that an agreement was forthcoming that would maintain Jewish population majority 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 identity as Jews. The nation became a key component within religious instruction. Israeli national day turned into a celebration. Israeli flags adorned most synagogues. Summer camps became infused with Israeli songs and learning of contemporary Hebrew, with visitors from Israel educating American youth national traditions. Travel to Israel increased and reached new heights via educational trips in 1999, offering complimentary travel to Israel became available to young American Jews. The nation influenced virtually all areas of Jewish American identity.

Evolving Situation

Paradoxically, during this period following the war, US Jewish communities became adept regarding denominational coexistence. Acceptance and communication between Jewish denominations grew.

Yet concerning the Israeli situation – that represented tolerance ended. You could be a conservative supporter or a progressive supporter, however endorsement of the nation as a Jewish homeland remained unquestioned, and challenging that position categorized you outside the consensus – an “Un-Jew”, as Tablet magazine described it in writing recently.

Yet presently, amid of the ruin within Gaza, starvation, young victims and outrage over the denial within Jewish communities who refuse to recognize their involvement, that agreement has broken down. The moderate Zionist position {has lost|no longer