🔗 Share this article

It has been that deadly assault of the events of October 7th, an event that shook global Jewish populations more than any event since the founding of Israel as a nation.

For Jews the event proved profoundly disturbing. For the Israeli government, the situation represented a profound disgrace. The whole Zionist movement had been established on the assumption which held that Israel could stop things like this repeating.

Some form of retaliation was inevitable. But the response that Israel implemented – the comprehensive devastation of the Gaza Strip, the deaths and injuries of many thousands ordinary people – constituted a specific policy. This selected path complicated the way numerous American Jews grappled with the attack that set it in motion, and it now complicates the community's observance of the day. How does one mourn and commemorate a tragedy against your people during devastation experienced by another people in your name?

The Difficulty of Mourning

The difficulty of mourning stems from the reality that there is no consensus as to the significance of these events. Indeed, for the American Jewish community, the last two years have witnessed the breakdown of a fifty-year agreement on Zionism itself.

The beginnings of Zionist agreement across American Jewish populations can be traced to a 1915 essay by the lawyer subsequently appointed Supreme Court judge Louis D. Brandeis titled “Jewish Issues; How to Solve it”. Yet the unity really takes hold subsequent to the six-day war during 1967. Previously, US Jewish communities maintained a fragile but stable parallel existence across various segments that had a range of views concerning the necessity for Israel – pro-Israel advocates, neutral parties and anti-Zionists.

Previous Developments

This parallel existence endured through the mid-twentieth century, through surviving aspects of Jewish socialism, within the neutral Jewish communal organization, among the opposing religious group and other organizations. For Louis Finkelstein, the leader of the Jewish Theological Seminary, the Zionist movement had greater religious significance rather than political, and he forbade performance of Israel's anthem, the Israeli national anthem, at religious school events in those years. Furthermore, Zionism and pro-Israelism the main element within modern Orthodox Judaism prior to that war. Different Jewish identity models existed alongside.

However following Israel defeated its neighbors in that war during that period, taking control of areas comprising Palestinian territories, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and Jerusalem's eastern sector, the American Jewish connection with the nation evolved considerably. Israel’s victory, coupled with persistent concerns of a “second Holocaust”, resulted in an increasing conviction in the country’s vital role within Jewish identity, and a source of pride in its resilience. Rhetoric regarding the extraordinary quality of the success and the reclaiming of land provided the movement a spiritual, even messianic, significance. In those heady years, a significant portion of previous uncertainty toward Israel vanished. In that decade, Commentary magazine editor Podhoretz famously proclaimed: “We are all Zionists now.”

The Consensus and Its Limits

The Zionist consensus excluded strictly Orthodox communities – who largely believed a nation should only be ushered in via conventional understanding of the messiah – yet included Reform Judaism, Conservative, Modern Orthodox and most unaffiliated individuals. The predominant version of the unified position, later termed liberal Zionism, was based on the idea about the nation as a liberal and liberal – while majority-Jewish – country. Many American Jews viewed the occupation of Palestinian, Syria's and Egyptian lands following the war as provisional, thinking that a resolution was imminent that would maintain Jewish population majority in pre-1967 Israel and Middle Eastern approval of the state.

Two generations of Jewish Americans grew up with pro-Israel ideology a core part of their identity as Jews. The state transformed into a central part within religious instruction. Israel’s Independence Day evolved into a religious observance. National symbols decorated many temples. Seasonal activities became infused with Hebrew music and education of contemporary Hebrew, with Israeli guests instructing American teenagers national traditions. Visits to Israel expanded and peaked via educational trips in 1999, offering complimentary travel to the country was provided to Jewish young adults. The nation influenced virtually all areas of the American Jewish experience.

Shifting Landscape

Interestingly, throughout these years post-1967, Jewish Americans developed expertise regarding denominational coexistence. Tolerance and communication among different Jewish movements grew.

However regarding Zionism and Israel – that represented diversity found its boundary. One could identify as a rightwing Zionist or a liberal advocate, however endorsement of the nation as a Jewish homeland was a given, and criticizing that narrative positioned you outside mainstream views – outside the community, as a Jewish periodical described it in writing recently.

Yet presently, amid of the devastation of Gaza, famine, dead and orphaned children and outrage regarding the refusal within Jewish communities who refuse to recognize their involvement, that unity has broken down. The liberal Zionist “center” {has lost|no longer