🔗 Share this article

Marking two years after that horrific attack of the events of October 7th, an event that profoundly impacted Jewish communities worldwide more than any event following the establishment of the state of Israel.

For Jews it was shocking. For the Israeli government, the situation represented deeply humiliating. The whole Zionist project had been established on the belief which held that Israel would ensure against such atrocities repeating.

A response seemed necessary. Yet the chosen course Israel pursued – the comprehensive devastation of Gaza, the casualties of many thousands ordinary people – constituted a specific policy. This particular approach made more difficult how many American Jews grappled with the initial assault that precipitated the response, and presently makes difficult the community's observance of that date. In what way can people honor and reflect on a horrific event affecting their nation during devastation done to another people connected to their community?

The Complexity of Grieving

The challenge of mourning exists because of the fact that there is no consensus as to the significance of these events. In fact, among Jewish Americans, this two-year period have experienced the disintegration of a fifty-year unity on Zionism itself.

The origins of a Zionist consensus among American Jewry can be traced to an early twentieth-century publication written by a legal scholar subsequently appointed supreme court justice Louis D. Brandeis titled “The Jewish Question; Finding Solutions”. But the consensus really takes hold following the 1967 conflict in 1967. Earlier, Jewish Americans housed a vulnerable but enduring cohabitation among different factions which maintained diverse perspectives about the necessity for Israel – Zionists, neutral parties and opponents.

Historical Context

This parallel existence persisted during the 1950s and 60s, within remaining elements of socialist Jewish movements, in the non-Zionist American Jewish Committee, in the anti-Zionist religious group and comparable entities. Regarding Chancellor Finkelstein, the chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary, Zionism was more spiritual rather than political, and he prohibited performance of Israel's anthem, Hatikvah, during seminary ceremonies in the early 1960s. Furthermore, Zionism and pro-Israelism the central focus of Modern Orthodoxy before the 1967 conflict. Alternative Jewish perspectives coexisted.

However following Israel defeated its neighbors during the 1967 conflict in 1967, seizing land comprising the West Bank, Gaza Strip, the Golan and Jerusalem's eastern sector, the American Jewish relationship to Israel changed dramatically. Israel’s victory, coupled with enduring anxieties about another genocide, produced a growing belief regarding Israel's essential significance within Jewish identity, and generated admiration for its strength. Language concerning the “miraculous” quality of the outcome and the “liberation” of areas gave Zionism a religious, even messianic, meaning. In that triumphant era, a significant portion of previous uncertainty regarding Zionism disappeared. During the seventies, Commentary magazine editor Norman Podhoretz stated: “Everyone supports Zionism today.”

The Unity and Restrictions

The unified position excluded the ultra-Orthodox – who generally maintained Israel should only emerge through traditional interpretation of the messiah – yet included Reform, Conservative Judaism, Modern Orthodox and most secular Jews. The common interpretation of the unified position, what became known as left-leaning Zionism, was established on the idea about the nation as a democratic and liberal – though Jewish-centered – nation. Countless Jewish Americans saw the control of Palestinian, Syria's and Egypt's territories post-1967 as not permanent, believing that a solution was imminent that would guarantee Jewish population majority in pre-1967 Israel and regional acceptance of the state.

Several cohorts of American Jews were thus brought up with Zionism a fundamental aspect of their identity as Jews. The nation became a key component within religious instruction. Yom Ha'atzmaut turned into a celebration. National symbols adorned religious institutions. Youth programs became infused with Israeli songs and learning of the language, with Israeli guests educating American youth national traditions. Trips to the nation expanded and reached new heights with Birthright Israel during that year, when a free trip to the nation became available to Jewish young adults. The state affected almost the entirety of Jewish American identity.

Shifting Landscape

Ironically, throughout these years post-1967, US Jewish communities became adept in religious diversity. Acceptance and dialogue among different Jewish movements grew.

Except when it came to Zionism and Israel – there existed pluralism ended. Individuals might align with a right-leaning advocate or a leftwing Zionist, however endorsement of the nation as a majority-Jewish country remained unquestioned, and challenging that perspective placed you beyond accepted boundaries – an “Un-Jew”, as Tablet magazine labeled it in a piece that year.

But now, under the weight of the devastation within Gaza, starvation, child casualties and outrage regarding the refusal by numerous Jewish individuals who decline to acknowledge their complicity, that consensus has collapsed. The liberal Zionist “center” {has lost|no longer