🔗 Share this article

Two years have passed since that mass murder of October 7, 2023, an event that shook Jewish communities worldwide like no other occurrence since the creation of the state of Israel.

Among Jewish people it was deeply traumatic. For Israel as a nation, it was deeply humiliating. The whole Zionist project had been established on the presumption that Israel would ensure against such atrocities occurring in the future.

A response seemed necessary. Yet the chosen course Israel pursued – the comprehensive devastation of the Gaza Strip, the casualties of many thousands non-combatants – represented a decision. And this choice made more difficult the perspective of many US Jewish community members processed the initial assault that triggered it, and presently makes difficult their commemoration of the anniversary. In what way can people mourn and commemorate an atrocity affecting their nation during an atrocity being inflicted upon a different population connected to their community?

The Complexity of Grieving

The difficulty surrounding remembrance exists because of the circumstance where there is no consensus about the implications of these developments. In fact, within US Jewish circles, this two-year period have witnessed the breakdown of a fifty-year unity on Zionism itself.

The beginnings of Zionist agreement within US Jewish communities dates back to an early twentieth-century publication authored by an attorney who would later become supreme court justice Louis Brandeis titled “The Jewish Problem; Addressing the Challenge”. But the consensus really takes hold following the 1967 conflict that year. Earlier, Jewish Americans housed a vulnerable but enduring coexistence between groups which maintained diverse perspectives regarding the need for a Jewish nation – Zionists, non-Zionists and opponents.

Previous Developments

That coexistence continued through the post-war decades, in remnants of leftist Jewish organizations, in the non-Zionist US Jewish group, in the anti-Zionist Jewish organization and other organizations. For Louis Finkelstein, the head at JTS, the Zionist movement was more spiritual instead of governmental, and he prohibited singing Hatikvah, the national song, at JTS ordinations in those years. Nor were Zionist ideology the main element within modern Orthodox Judaism prior to the six-day war. Jewish identitarian alternatives existed alongside.

But after Israel routed neighboring countries during the 1967 conflict during that period, taking control of areas such as Palestinian territories, Gaza, Golan Heights and Jerusalem's eastern sector, US Jewish relationship to the country underwent significant transformation. Israel’s victory, coupled with enduring anxieties about another genocide, led to a developing perspective regarding Israel's critical importance to the Jewish people, and created pride regarding its endurance. Language concerning the remarkable aspect of the victory and the reclaiming of land provided the movement a spiritual, potentially salvific, meaning. In that triumphant era, a significant portion of existing hesitation regarding Zionism dissipated. In that decade, Writer Podhoretz stated: “Zionism unites us all.”

The Unity and Its Limits

The pro-Israel agreement did not include Haredi Jews – who typically thought Israel should only be ushered in through traditional interpretation of redemption – yet included Reform, Conservative Judaism, contemporary Orthodox and the majority of unaffiliated individuals. The common interpretation of this agreement, what became known as left-leaning Zionism, was founded on the conviction about the nation as a progressive and liberal – while majority-Jewish – country. Many American Jews viewed the control of Palestinian, Syrian and Egypt's territories after 1967 as not permanent, assuming that a solution was imminent that would maintain Jewish population majority within Israel's original borders and regional acceptance of the state.

Multiple generations of American Jews grew up with support for Israel a core part of their Jewish identity. Israel became a central part within religious instruction. Israeli national day evolved into a religious observance. National symbols decorated religious institutions. Seasonal activities were permeated with Israeli songs and the study of modern Hebrew, with Israeli guests educating American teenagers Israeli customs. Travel to Israel grew and reached new heights with Birthright Israel by 1999, offering complimentary travel to the nation was offered to Jewish young adults. The nation influenced almost the entirety of US Jewish life.

Changing Dynamics

Paradoxically, in these decades after 1967, American Jewry became adept in religious diversity. Open-mindedness and discussion between Jewish denominations increased.

Except when it came to support for Israel – that’s where pluralism found its boundary. One could identify as a right-leaning advocate or a progressive supporter, however endorsement of the nation as a Jewish state was assumed, and questioning that position categorized you outside the consensus – an “Un-Jew”, as one publication labeled it in writing that year.

But now, under the weight of the ruin in Gaza, famine, dead and orphaned children and frustration over the denial of many fellow Jews who decline to acknowledge their responsibility, that consensus has collapsed. The centrist pro-Israel view {has lost|no longer