🔗 Share this article

Marking two years after that mass murder of 7 October 2023, an event that deeply affected Jewish communities worldwide unlike anything else since the establishment of the state of Israel.

Within Jewish communities the event proved shocking. For the Israeli government, the situation represented deeply humiliating. The entire Zionist movement had been established on the belief that the Jewish state would ensure against things like this repeating.

A response was inevitable. However, the particular response that Israel implemented – the obliteration of Gaza, the killing and maiming of many thousands non-combatants – constituted a specific policy. And this choice created complexity in how many American Jews grappled with the attack that triggered it, and it now complicates their remembrance of the day. How can someone mourn and commemorate a horrific event targeting their community in the midst of devastation being inflicted upon other individuals connected to their community?

The Challenge of Grieving

The difficulty in grieving exists because of the circumstance where there is no consensus about what any of this means. Actually, among Jewish Americans, the recent twenty-four months have experienced the disintegration of a decades-long agreement on Zionism itself.

The origins of a Zionist consensus within US Jewish communities dates back to writings from 1915 authored by an attorney and then future supreme court justice Louis D. Brandeis named “The Jewish Question; Finding Solutions”. However, the agreement truly solidified following the 1967 conflict during 1967. Previously, Jewish Americans housed a delicate yet functioning coexistence across various segments holding different opinions concerning the requirement of a Jewish state – Zionists, neutral parties and opponents.

Historical Context

Such cohabitation continued throughout the mid-twentieth century, within remaining elements of leftist Jewish organizations, in the non-Zionist Jewish communal organization, among the opposing religious group and other organizations. In the view of Louis Finkelstein, the head of the theological institution, pro-Israel ideology was more spiritual rather than political, and he prohibited performance of Israel's anthem, the national song, during seminary ceremonies during that period. Furthermore, support for Israel the central focus for contemporary Orthodox communities until after the 1967 conflict. Alternative Jewish perspectives coexisted.

Yet after Israel routed its neighbors in that war during that period, taking control of areas such as Palestinian territories, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and Jerusalem's eastern sector, the American Jewish perspective on the nation evolved considerably. The triumphant outcome, coupled with enduring anxieties regarding repeated persecution, produced a developing perspective in the country’s vital role within Jewish identity, and created pride for its strength. Rhetoric about the “miraculous” aspect of the victory and the freeing of territory provided the Zionist project a theological, potentially salvific, significance. In those heady years, a significant portion of previous uncertainty toward Israel dissipated. In that decade, Publication editor the commentator famously proclaimed: “Everyone supports Zionism today.”

The Agreement and Restrictions

The unified position excluded Haredi Jews – who generally maintained a nation should only be established by a traditional rendering of the messiah – however joined Reform, Conservative, Modern Orthodox and the majority of unaffiliated individuals. The predominant version of the unified position, identified as progressive Zionism, was established on the conviction regarding Israel as a liberal and liberal – albeit ethnocentric – state. Many American Jews saw the occupation of Arab, Syria's and Egypt's territories following the war as provisional, assuming that a resolution was forthcoming that would maintain a Jewish majority within Israel's original borders and regional acceptance of the nation.

Several cohorts of American Jews were thus brought up with Zionism a core part of their religious identity. The nation became a central part within religious instruction. Yom Ha'atzmaut became a Jewish holiday. National symbols adorned religious institutions. Summer camps became infused with Hebrew music and the study of the language, with visitors from Israel instructing American youth Israeli customs. Visits to Israel increased and reached new heights via educational trips in 1999, when a free trip to the country was provided to US Jewish youth. The nation influenced nearly every aspect of US Jewish life.

Changing Dynamics

Interestingly, during this period after 1967, US Jewish communities became adept at religious pluralism. Tolerance and communication between Jewish denominations grew.

Except when it came to the Israeli situation – that’s where tolerance found its boundary. Individuals might align with a right-leaning advocate or a liberal advocate, however endorsement of the nation as a majority-Jewish country was assumed, and questioning that narrative positioned you beyond accepted boundaries – a non-conformist, as a Jewish periodical labeled it in writing in 2021.

However currently, during of the ruin within Gaza, starvation, child casualties and anger regarding the refusal by numerous Jewish individuals who decline to acknowledge their responsibility, that unity has collapsed. The moderate Zionist position {has lost|no longer