🔗 Share this article

It has been that horrific attack of the events of October 7th, an event that deeply affected world Jewry like no other occurrence following the creation of the Jewish state.

For Jews the event proved profoundly disturbing. For Israel as a nation, it was deeply humiliating. The entire Zionist project was founded on the presumption that Israel would ensure against such atrocities from ever happening again.

Military action was inevitable. However, the particular response that Israel implemented – the widespread destruction of the Gaza Strip, the casualties of tens of thousands ordinary people – represented a decision. This particular approach created complexity in the perspective of many Jewish Americans understood the attack that set it in motion, and it now complicates the community's observance of the anniversary. In what way can people mourn and commemorate a tragedy targeting their community while simultaneously devastation experienced by other individuals attributed to their identity?

The Complexity of Mourning

The complexity of mourning exists because of the reality that little unity prevails regarding what any of this means. In fact, among Jewish Americans, this two-year period have witnessed the collapse of a fifty-year consensus regarding Zionism.

The beginnings of Zionist agreement among American Jewry dates back to writings from 1915 authored by an attorney who would later become Supreme Court judge Louis Brandeis titled “Jewish Issues; How to Solve it”. However, the agreement really takes hold following the 1967 conflict during 1967. Earlier, US Jewish communities housed a vulnerable but enduring coexistence across various segments that had diverse perspectives about the necessity for a Jewish nation – pro-Israel advocates, neutral parties and opponents.

Previous Developments

This parallel existence endured during the mid-twentieth century, through surviving aspects of socialist Jewish movements, within the neutral Jewish communal organization, within the critical religious group and other organizations. For Louis Finkelstein, the leader of the theological institution, Zionism had greater religious significance rather than political, and he did not permit the singing of Israel's anthem, the Israeli national anthem, at religious school events in the early 1960s. Furthermore, Zionism and pro-Israelism the main element for contemporary Orthodox communities prior to that war. Different Jewish identity models coexisted.

However following Israel defeated adjacent nations during the 1967 conflict in 1967, occupying territories comprising Palestinian territories, Gaza, Golan Heights and Jerusalem's eastern sector, US Jewish connection with the country underwent significant transformation. Israel’s victory, coupled with persistent concerns regarding repeated persecution, resulted in an increasing conviction about the nation's essential significance for Jewish communities, and created pride regarding its endurance. Rhetoric about the “miraculous” nature of the outcome and the reclaiming of territory gave Zionism a spiritual, potentially salvific, importance. In that triumphant era, much of previous uncertainty about Zionism disappeared. In the early 1970s, Publication editor Podhoretz stated: “Everyone supports Zionism today.”

The Unity and Its Limits

The unified position did not include strictly Orthodox communities – who generally maintained a nation should only emerge by a traditional rendering of redemption – yet included Reform, Conservative, Modern Orthodox and nearly all unaffiliated individuals. The most popular form of this agreement, identified as liberal Zionism, was established on the idea regarding Israel as a liberal and free – albeit ethnocentric – state. Numerous US Jews viewed the administration of Arab, Syria's and Egypt's territories after 1967 as temporary, assuming that a solution was forthcoming that would maintain a Jewish majority in pre-1967 Israel and regional acceptance of the state.

Two generations of American Jews were thus brought up with pro-Israel ideology an essential component of their religious identity. Israel became a central part within religious instruction. Yom Ha'atzmaut became a Jewish holiday. National symbols adorned many temples. Youth programs were permeated with Hebrew music and learning of contemporary Hebrew, with visitors from Israel educating American youth Israeli customs. Trips to the nation increased and peaked with Birthright Israel in 1999, offering complimentary travel to the country became available to Jewish young adults. Israel permeated virtually all areas of US Jewish life.

Evolving Situation

Interestingly, in these decades following the war, US Jewish communities developed expertise at religious pluralism. Open-mindedness and dialogue among different Jewish movements grew.

Except when it came to Zionism and Israel – that represented tolerance found its boundary. One could identify as a conservative supporter or a liberal advocate, however endorsement of the nation as a Jewish state was assumed, and criticizing that position placed you outside mainstream views – an “Un-Jew”, as one publication described it in writing that year.

However currently, amid of the destruction of Gaza, famine, young victims and outrage over the denial within Jewish communities who refuse to recognize their involvement, that agreement has collapsed. The centrist pro-Israel view {has lost|no longer