🔗 Share this article

Two years have passed since the horrific attack of 7 October 2023, which deeply affected world Jewry like no other occurrence following the creation of the state of Israel.

For Jews the event proved deeply traumatic. For Israel as a nation, it was deeply humiliating. The entire Zionist endeavor had been established on the belief which held that the Jewish state would prevent things like this occurring in the future.

Some form of retaliation seemed necessary. But the response that Israel implemented – the widespread destruction of Gaza, the deaths and injuries of tens of thousands non-combatants – was a choice. This selected path made more difficult the way numerous US Jewish community members processed the attack that triggered it, and currently challenges their commemoration of the day. In what way can people grieve and remember a horrific event affecting their nation in the midst of an atrocity being inflicted upon another people connected to their community?

The Complexity of Remembrance

The challenge of mourning lies in the circumstance where there is no consensus about what any of this means. Actually, within US Jewish circles, the recent twenty-four months have seen the collapse of a half-century-old consensus about the Zionist movement.

The beginnings of a Zionist consensus across American Jewish populations extends as far back as a 1915 essay written by a legal scholar subsequently appointed Supreme Court judge Louis D. Brandeis named “Jewish Issues; How to Solve it”. But the consensus truly solidified subsequent to the six-day war during 1967. Before then, American Jewry contained a fragile but stable cohabitation across various segments that had different opinions regarding the requirement for a Jewish nation – pro-Israel advocates, neutral parties and opponents.

Previous Developments

Such cohabitation endured during the post-war decades, in remnants of leftist Jewish organizations, through the non-aligned Jewish communal organization, among the opposing American Council for Judaism and similar institutions. For Louis Finkelstein, the head of the theological institution, pro-Israel ideology was primarily theological than political, and he forbade the singing of Hatikvah, the national song, at religious school events during that period. Additionally, support for Israel the main element of Modern Orthodoxy prior to the 1967 conflict. Jewish identitarian alternatives coexisted.

However following Israel routed neighboring countries in that war in 1967, seizing land comprising Palestinian territories, Gaza, the Golan and Jerusalem's eastern sector, US Jewish perspective on the nation changed dramatically. The military success, coupled with enduring anxieties regarding repeated persecution, led to a growing belief about the nation's essential significance for Jewish communities, and generated admiration in its resilience. Discourse concerning the extraordinary aspect of the outcome and the freeing of territory gave Zionism a religious, potentially salvific, meaning. In that triumphant era, a significant portion of the remaining ambivalence regarding Zionism disappeared. During the seventies, Publication editor Norman Podhoretz famously proclaimed: “Zionism unites us all.”

The Consensus and Its Boundaries

The Zionist consensus left out Haredi Jews – who generally maintained a nation should only be ushered in through traditional interpretation of the messiah – however joined Reform, Conservative Judaism, Modern Orthodox and the majority of secular Jews. The most popular form of this agreement, identified as left-leaning Zionism, was based on the idea about the nation as a progressive and liberal – though Jewish-centered – state. Numerous US Jews saw the occupation of Arab, Syrian and Egypt's territories following the war as temporary, assuming that a solution was forthcoming that would maintain Jewish population majority in pre-1967 Israel and Middle Eastern approval of the state.

Several cohorts of American Jews were thus brought up with Zionism a fundamental aspect of their religious identity. The nation became a central part within religious instruction. Yom Ha'atzmaut evolved into a religious observance. Israeli flags adorned religious institutions. Youth programs integrated with Israeli songs and education of the language, with Israeli guests and teaching American youth Israeli culture. Travel to Israel grew and peaked through Birthright programs during that year, when a free trip to Israel was provided to US Jewish youth. The state affected virtually all areas of Jewish American identity.

Evolving Situation

Ironically, in these decades after 1967, Jewish Americans developed expertise in religious diversity. Open-mindedness and discussion between Jewish denominations grew.

Except when it came to support for Israel – that’s where pluralism ended. Individuals might align with a rightwing Zionist or a leftwing Zionist, however endorsement of the nation as a Jewish homeland was a given, and challenging that position positioned you outside the consensus – an “Un-Jew”, as Tablet magazine labeled it in writing recently.

However currently, under the weight of the devastation in Gaza, starvation, dead and orphaned children and frustration over the denial of many fellow Jews who avoid admitting their responsibility, that unity has disintegrated. The moderate Zionist position {has lost|no longer