🔗 Share this article

It has been that deadly assault of the events of October 7th, which deeply affected global Jewish populations unlike anything else following the establishment of the state of Israel.

For Jews it was profoundly disturbing. For the state of Israel, the situation represented a profound disgrace. The whole Zionist movement was founded on the assumption that Israel would prevent similar tragedies from ever happening again.

A response seemed necessary. However, the particular response Israel pursued – the comprehensive devastation of Gaza, the casualties of many thousands of civilians – was a choice. And this choice complicated how many Jewish Americans grappled with the October 7th events that triggered it, and it now complicates their commemoration of the day. In what way can people honor and reflect on a tragedy affecting their nation while simultaneously a catastrophe experienced by another people attributed to their identity?

The Complexity of Mourning

The difficulty of mourning exists because of the circumstance where there is no consensus regarding what any of this means. Actually, for the American Jewish community, the last two years have experienced the collapse of a decades-long consensus on Zionism itself.

The origins of pro-Israel unity across American Jewish populations dates back to a 1915 essay by the lawyer and then future Supreme Court judge Louis D. Brandeis called “Jewish Issues; Addressing the Challenge”. Yet the unity became firmly established following the 1967 conflict in 1967. Before then, Jewish Americans housed a fragile but stable parallel existence between groups holding a range of views regarding the requirement for a Jewish nation – pro-Israel advocates, non-Zionists and opponents.

Background Information

This parallel existence endured during the 1950s and 60s, within remaining elements of Jewish socialism, within the neutral Jewish communal organization, within the critical Jewish organization and similar institutions. Regarding Chancellor Finkelstein, the head at JTS, the Zionist movement was primarily theological than political, and he prohibited performance of the Israeli national anthem, the Israeli national anthem, during seminary ceremonies during that period. Additionally, Zionism and pro-Israelism the centerpiece of Modern Orthodoxy prior to the 1967 conflict. Alternative Jewish perspectives coexisted.

However following Israel defeated adjacent nations during the 1967 conflict that year, occupying territories such as Palestinian territories, Gaza, the Golan and East Jerusalem, US Jewish connection with Israel changed dramatically. The triumphant outcome, combined with enduring anxieties regarding repeated persecution, produced an increasing conviction about the nation's essential significance within Jewish identity, and generated admiration for its strength. Language concerning the extraordinary nature of the victory and the reclaiming of areas gave the Zionist project a theological, potentially salvific, importance. In that triumphant era, a significant portion of previous uncertainty toward Israel dissipated. In that decade, Commentary magazine editor Norman Podhoretz declared: “Everyone supports Zionism today.”

The Consensus and Restrictions

The unified position did not include strictly Orthodox communities – who generally maintained Israel should only emerge through traditional interpretation of the messiah – however joined Reform, Conservative, Modern Orthodox and nearly all secular Jews. The common interpretation of the unified position, what became known as progressive Zionism, was founded on the idea about the nation as a liberal and free – while majority-Jewish – state. Many American Jews viewed the administration of Arab, Syria's and Egyptian lands post-1967 as temporary, believing that a resolution was forthcoming that would maintain Jewish demographic dominance within Israel's original borders and Middle Eastern approval of the state.

Two generations of American Jews were thus brought up with pro-Israel ideology an essential component of their identity as Jews. The nation became a central part of Jewish education. Yom Ha'atzmaut evolved into a religious observance. National symbols decorated most synagogues. Seasonal activities integrated with Israeli songs and education of modern Hebrew, with Israeli guests and teaching American youth national traditions. Visits to Israel increased and peaked through Birthright programs during that year, when a free trip to the country became available to young American Jews. The state affected nearly every aspect of the American Jewish experience.

Changing Dynamics

Ironically, in these decades after 1967, Jewish Americans grew skilled in religious diversity. Acceptance and dialogue across various Jewish groups increased.

Yet concerning Zionism and Israel – that’s where diversity found its boundary. One could identify as a rightwing Zionist or a leftwing Zionist, but support for Israel as a Jewish state remained unquestioned, and challenging that position categorized you outside mainstream views – an “Un-Jew”, as a Jewish periodical termed it in writing that year.

However currently, during of the ruin in Gaza, famine, child casualties and outrage about the rejection within Jewish communities who decline to acknowledge their involvement, that consensus has collapsed. The moderate Zionist position {has lost|no longer