🔗 Share this article

It has been the mass murder of 7 October 2023, which profoundly impacted Jewish communities worldwide more than any event since the creation of the Jewish state.

Among Jewish people the event proved deeply traumatic. For the Israeli government, it was a profound disgrace. The whole Zionist movement had been established on the belief that the nation would prevent similar tragedies occurring in the future.

A response was inevitable. But the response undertaken by Israel – the widespread destruction of the Gaza Strip, the casualties of many thousands non-combatants – was a choice. This selected path made more difficult the way numerous Jewish Americans processed the October 7th events that precipitated the response, and presently makes difficult their remembrance of the anniversary. In what way can people grieve and remember a horrific event targeting their community while simultaneously an atrocity experienced by a different population attributed to their identity?

The Complexity of Mourning

The difficulty in grieving stems from the circumstance where there is no consensus regarding the implications of these developments. Indeed, for the American Jewish community, this two-year period have seen the collapse of a half-century-old agreement on Zionism itself.

The beginnings of Zionist agreement across American Jewish populations dates back to an early twentieth-century publication by the lawyer subsequently appointed high court jurist Louis Brandeis titled “Jewish Issues; How to Solve it”. However, the agreement really takes hold after the six-day war during 1967. Earlier, US Jewish communities housed a fragile but stable parallel existence among different factions that had diverse perspectives concerning the requirement of a Jewish state – Zionists, non-Zionists and anti-Zionists.

Historical Context

This parallel existence continued during the mid-twentieth century, within remaining elements of leftist Jewish organizations, through the non-aligned Jewish communal organization, in the anti-Zionist Jewish organization and similar institutions. Regarding Chancellor Finkelstein, the head of the theological institution, Zionism was primarily theological than political, and he prohibited singing Hatikvah, the Israeli national anthem, at JTS ordinations in the early 1960s. Nor were Zionist ideology the main element within modern Orthodox Judaism before that war. Different Jewish identity models coexisted.

Yet after Israel defeated its neighbors in that war during that period, taking control of areas such as the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and Jerusalem's eastern sector, the American Jewish connection with the nation evolved considerably. The military success, along with enduring anxieties about another genocide, resulted in a growing belief regarding Israel's vital role to the Jewish people, and created pride for its strength. Language about the extraordinary aspect of the outcome and the freeing of land provided Zionism a theological, potentially salvific, meaning. During that enthusiastic period, considerable previous uncertainty regarding Zionism dissipated. In the early 1970s, Writer Podhoretz stated: “Everyone supports Zionism today.”

The Consensus and Its Limits

The pro-Israel agreement excluded strictly Orthodox communities – who largely believed a nation should only be ushered in via conventional understanding of the Messiah – yet included Reform, Conservative Judaism, contemporary Orthodox and most unaffiliated individuals. The common interpretation of the unified position, what became known as liberal Zionism, was founded on the idea in Israel as a democratic and free – albeit ethnocentric – country. Many American Jews saw the occupation of Arab, Syrian and Egypt's territories after 1967 as temporary, assuming that a resolution would soon emerge that would guarantee a Jewish majority in Israel proper and Middle Eastern approval of Israel.

Two generations of US Jews were thus brought up with Zionism an essential component of their identity as Jews. Israel became a central part within religious instruction. Israeli national day became a Jewish holiday. Blue and white banners were displayed in religious institutions. Youth programs were permeated with national melodies and education of the language, with Israelis visiting instructing American youth Israeli customs. Visits to Israel increased and peaked through Birthright programs during that year, providing no-cost visits to the country was provided to Jewish young adults. The state affected nearly every aspect of the American Jewish experience.

Shifting Landscape

Interestingly, during this period post-1967, Jewish Americans developed expertise regarding denominational coexistence. Tolerance and dialogue between Jewish denominations increased.

Except when it came to the Israeli situation – there existed pluralism reached its limit. You could be a right-leaning advocate or a leftwing Zionist, however endorsement of the nation as a Jewish homeland was a given, and questioning that position positioned you beyond accepted boundaries – an “Un-Jew”, as a Jewish periodical termed it in writing recently.

Yet presently, under the weight of the ruin of Gaza, famine, child casualties and anger regarding the refusal of many fellow Jews who avoid admitting their responsibility, that unity has collapsed. The centrist pro-Israel view {has lost|no longer