🔗 Share this article

Two years have passed since the mass murder of 7 October 2023, which deeply affected Jewish communities worldwide like no other occurrence following the creation of the state of Israel.

For Jews the event proved profoundly disturbing. For the Israeli government, the situation represented a significant embarrassment. The entire Zionist endeavor rested on the presumption which held that Israel would ensure against such atrocities occurring in the future.

Military action appeared unavoidable. But the response undertaken by Israel – the obliteration of the Gaza Strip, the deaths and injuries of many thousands ordinary people – was a choice. And this choice complicated the way numerous US Jewish community members grappled with the initial assault that set it in motion, and it now complicates the community's commemoration of that date. How does one grieve and remember an atrocity affecting their nation during an atrocity being inflicted upon other individuals connected to their community?

The Difficulty of Mourning

The difficulty surrounding remembrance lies in the reality that little unity prevails regarding what any of this means. Actually, among Jewish Americans, the last two years have witnessed the disintegration of a fifty-year consensus on Zionism itself.

The origins of Zionist agreement among American Jewry extends as far back as an early twentieth-century publication written by a legal scholar and then future supreme court justice Justice Brandeis titled “Jewish Issues; Addressing the Challenge”. But the consensus really takes hold following the six-day war during 1967. Previously, American Jewry housed a vulnerable but enduring parallel existence between groups holding diverse perspectives about the requirement for a Jewish nation – Zionists, neutral parties and opponents.

Previous Developments

Such cohabitation persisted throughout the post-war decades, in remnants of Jewish socialism, in the non-Zionist US Jewish group, in the anti-Zionist religious group and similar institutions. Regarding Chancellor Finkelstein, the chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary, Zionism was more spiritual than political, and he prohibited the singing of Hatikvah, Hatikvah, at JTS ordinations during that period. Additionally, Zionist ideology the centerpiece of Modern Orthodoxy until after the 1967 conflict. Different Jewish identity models remained present.

But after Israel routed neighboring countries during the 1967 conflict in 1967, seizing land including Palestinian territories, Gaza Strip, the Golan and East Jerusalem, the American Jewish relationship to Israel changed dramatically. The military success, combined with enduring anxieties of a “second Holocaust”, produced a growing belief in the country’s vital role within Jewish identity, and a source of pride for its strength. Rhetoric about the extraordinary aspect of the success and the reclaiming of land gave Zionism a religious, even messianic, significance. In those heady years, considerable existing hesitation about Zionism vanished. During the seventies, Commentary magazine editor Norman Podhoretz stated: “We are all Zionists now.”

The Consensus and Its Boundaries

The Zionist consensus left out the ultra-Orthodox – who typically thought a nation should only be established via conventional understanding of redemption – but united Reform, Conservative, Modern Orthodox and most non-affiliated Jews. The common interpretation of the consensus, identified as liberal Zionism, was based on the conviction in Israel as a liberal and liberal – albeit ethnocentric – nation. Many American Jews considered the occupation of Arab, Syria's and Egypt's territories after 1967 as provisional, thinking that a solution was imminent that would maintain Jewish population majority in Israel proper and Middle Eastern approval of Israel.

Two generations of Jewish Americans were raised with pro-Israel ideology a fundamental aspect of their Jewish identity. The state transformed into a key component within religious instruction. Israel’s Independence Day turned into a celebration. Blue and white banners adorned most synagogues. Youth programs became infused with Hebrew music and the study of modern Hebrew, with visitors from Israel educating US young people Israeli customs. Visits to Israel grew and achieved record numbers with Birthright Israel by 1999, offering complimentary travel to Israel became available to Jewish young adults. The nation influenced virtually all areas of the American Jewish experience.

Changing Dynamics

Ironically, in these decades following the war, American Jewry grew skilled regarding denominational coexistence. Acceptance and communication across various Jewish groups expanded.

However regarding Zionism and Israel – that represented diversity found its boundary. One could identify as a rightwing Zionist or a liberal advocate, however endorsement of the nation as a Jewish state was a given, and criticizing that position positioned you outside the consensus – outside the community, as a Jewish periodical termed it in a piece that year.

Yet presently, under the weight of the devastation of Gaza, starvation, young victims and anger regarding the refusal of many fellow Jews who avoid admitting their complicity, that unity has broken down. The moderate Zionist position {has lost|no longer