🔗 Share this article

Two years have passed since the deadly assault of October 7, 2023, which profoundly impacted Jewish communities worldwide more than any event following the establishment of the Jewish state.

For Jews it was shocking. For Israel as a nation, it was a profound disgrace. The whole Zionist endeavor rested on the assumption which held that the Jewish state would prevent things like this from ever happening again.

A response was inevitable. However, the particular response that Israel implemented – the comprehensive devastation of the Gaza Strip, the casualties of tens of thousands ordinary people – was a choice. This particular approach complicated the perspective of many Jewish Americans understood the initial assault that precipitated the response, and it now complicates the community's observance of that date. In what way can people honor and reflect on a tragedy against your people in the midst of a catastrophe experienced by another people in your name?

The Complexity of Remembrance

The difficulty surrounding remembrance stems from the circumstance where there is no consensus regarding what any of this means. In fact, among Jewish Americans, this two-year period have seen the breakdown of a fifty-year unity about the Zionist movement.

The beginnings of Zionist agreement across American Jewish populations can be traced to an early twentieth-century publication authored by an attorney who would later become Supreme Court judge Louis Brandeis called “The Jewish Problem; How to Solve it”. But the consensus really takes hold following the 1967 conflict in 1967. Before then, Jewish Americans housed a delicate yet functioning parallel existence between groups which maintained diverse perspectives about the necessity for Israel – Zionists, non-Zionists and opponents.

Background Information

This parallel existence continued during the mid-twentieth century, through surviving aspects of Jewish socialism, within the neutral Jewish communal organization, in the anti-Zionist American Council for Judaism and comparable entities. For Louis Finkelstein, the leader of the theological institution, Zionism was primarily theological rather than political, and he did not permit the singing of the Israeli national anthem, the national song, at JTS ordinations in those years. Furthermore, Zionist ideology the centerpiece within modern Orthodox Judaism prior to the 1967 conflict. Alternative Jewish perspectives existed alongside.

Yet after Israel defeated its neighbors in the six-day war that year, occupying territories comprising Palestinian territories, Gaza Strip, the Golan and Jerusalem's eastern sector, US Jewish connection with Israel underwent significant transformation. The military success, combined with enduring anxieties regarding repeated persecution, led to a growing belief about the nation's critical importance to the Jewish people, and generated admiration for its strength. Language concerning the remarkable aspect of the success and the freeing of territory gave the movement a theological, even messianic, significance. During that enthusiastic period, considerable the remaining ambivalence about Zionism dissipated. In that decade, Publication editor the commentator stated: “Everyone supports Zionism today.”

The Consensus and Its Boundaries

The Zionist consensus excluded strictly Orthodox communities – who largely believed Israel should only be ushered in through traditional interpretation of the messiah – yet included Reform, Conservative, Modern Orthodox and nearly all secular Jews. The predominant version of the unified position, identified as liberal Zionism, was founded on the idea about the nation as a progressive and liberal – though Jewish-centered – state. Numerous US Jews saw the administration of local, Syrian and Egypt's territories following the war as not permanent, thinking that a resolution was forthcoming that would guarantee Jewish demographic dominance in pre-1967 Israel and Middle Eastern approval of the state.

Several cohorts of American Jews were raised with support for Israel an essential component of their Jewish identity. The state transformed into a key component in Jewish learning. Yom Ha'atzmaut turned into a celebration. National symbols were displayed in many temples. Summer camps became infused with Israeli songs and education of the language, with Israeli guests instructing American youth national traditions. Visits to Israel grew and reached new heights via educational trips during that year, when a free trip to the nation was provided to young American Jews. Israel permeated almost the entirety of the American Jewish experience.

Evolving Situation

Interestingly, during this period following the war, Jewish Americans developed expertise in religious diversity. Open-mindedness and communication among different Jewish movements increased.

Except when it came to Zionism and Israel – that represented pluralism found its boundary. Individuals might align with a conservative supporter or a liberal advocate, however endorsement of the nation as a Jewish homeland was a given, and criticizing that narrative categorized you outside the consensus – an “Un-Jew”, as a Jewish periodical labeled it in a piece that year.

Yet presently, during of the ruin within Gaza, food shortages, young victims and outrage over the denial within Jewish communities who refuse to recognize their involvement, that unity has broken down. The liberal Zionist “center” {has lost|no longer