🔗 Share this article

It has been the deadly assault of the events of October 7th, which profoundly impacted global Jewish populations more than any event since the founding of the Jewish state.

For Jews it was profoundly disturbing. For the state of Israel, it was deeply humiliating. The whole Zionist endeavor rested on the presumption that the nation would ensure against things like this repeating.

Military action was inevitable. However, the particular response that Israel implemented – the obliteration of the Gaza Strip, the killing and maiming of tens of thousands of civilians – was a choice. And this choice created complexity in the perspective of many US Jewish community members understood the October 7th events that set it in motion, and currently challenges the community's remembrance of the day. How does one honor and reflect on a horrific event targeting their community while simultaneously devastation done to another people connected to their community?

The Difficulty of Remembrance

The complexity surrounding remembrance exists because of the circumstance where no agreement exists regarding the implications of these developments. Indeed, within US Jewish circles, this two-year period have experienced the collapse of a decades-long agreement regarding Zionism.

The early development of Zionist agreement across American Jewish populations dates back to writings from 1915 authored by an attorney who would later become supreme court justice Justice Brandeis named “The Jewish Question; Addressing the Challenge”. Yet the unity became firmly established after the 1967 conflict during 1967. Before then, US Jewish communities contained a delicate yet functioning coexistence across various segments holding different opinions regarding the requirement for Israel – pro-Israel advocates, non-Zionists and anti-Zionists.

Previous Developments

That coexistence endured during the 1950s and 60s, in remnants of Jewish socialism, in the non-Zionist US Jewish group, within the critical American Council for Judaism and comparable entities. For Louis Finkelstein, the chancellor at JTS, pro-Israel ideology was primarily theological than political, and he prohibited the singing of the Israeli national anthem, Hatikvah, at JTS ordinations during that period. Additionally, Zionist ideology the main element within modern Orthodox Judaism until after the 1967 conflict. Jewish identitarian alternatives coexisted.

But after Israel routed adjacent nations during the 1967 conflict that year, taking control of areas comprising the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan and East Jerusalem, US Jewish perspective on Israel underwent significant transformation. Israel’s victory, combined with enduring anxieties about another genocide, resulted in a developing perspective in the country’s essential significance for Jewish communities, and generated admiration in its resilience. Discourse regarding the extraordinary nature of the outcome and the “liberation” of territory assigned the movement a spiritual, even messianic, importance. In that triumphant era, much of the remaining ambivalence toward Israel dissipated. In the early 1970s, Commentary magazine editor Norman Podhoretz famously proclaimed: “We are all Zionists now.”

The Agreement and Restrictions

The Zionist consensus did not include strictly Orthodox communities – who typically thought Israel should only emerge by a traditional rendering of the Messiah – however joined Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism, Modern Orthodox and the majority of non-affiliated Jews. The predominant version of this agreement, what became known as progressive Zionism, was established on the idea in Israel as a democratic and democratic – though Jewish-centered – nation. Numerous US Jews considered the control of Arab, Syrian and Egypt's territories following the war as provisional, thinking that a solution would soon emerge that would guarantee Jewish population majority within Israel's original borders and Middle Eastern approval of the state.

Multiple generations of American Jews were thus brought up with Zionism a fundamental aspect of their religious identity. The nation became a key component of Jewish education. Yom Ha'atzmaut evolved into a religious observance. Blue and white banners decorated many temples. Youth programs were permeated with Hebrew music and the study of contemporary Hebrew, with Israeli guests educating American youth Israeli customs. Visits to Israel increased and achieved record numbers via educational trips in 1999, offering complimentary travel to Israel was provided to US Jewish youth. The nation influenced almost the entirety of Jewish American identity.

Shifting Landscape

Interestingly, during this period following the war, American Jewry developed expertise in religious diversity. Acceptance and dialogue between Jewish denominations increased.

Except when it came to Zionism and Israel – that’s where diversity reached its limit. Individuals might align with a right-leaning advocate or a progressive supporter, however endorsement of the nation as a majority-Jewish country remained unquestioned, and questioning that perspective categorized you outside the consensus – outside the community, as a Jewish periodical termed it in a piece recently.

Yet presently, amid of the destruction within Gaza, food shortages, child casualties and frustration over the denial of many fellow Jews who decline to acknowledge their involvement, that agreement has broken down. The centrist pro-Israel view {has lost|no longer