🔗 Share this article

Two years have passed since the horrific attack of the events of October 7th, an event that deeply affected global Jewish populations like no other occurrence following the establishment of Israel as a nation.

For Jews the event proved profoundly disturbing. For the Israeli government, it was a profound disgrace. The entire Zionist project was founded on the presumption which held that Israel would ensure against such atrocities occurring in the future.

A response appeared unavoidable. But the response that Israel implemented – the comprehensive devastation of the Gaza Strip, the killing and maiming of many thousands of civilians – constituted a specific policy. And this choice complicated the perspective of many US Jewish community members processed the October 7th events that triggered it, and it now complicates the community's remembrance of the anniversary. How can someone mourn and commemorate an atrocity targeting their community during devastation being inflicted upon other individuals attributed to their identity?

The Challenge of Grieving

The complexity in grieving lies in the circumstance where there is no consensus as to the implications of these developments. Indeed, for the American Jewish community, the last two years have experienced the disintegration of a fifty-year agreement regarding Zionism.

The origins of Zionist agreement within US Jewish communities dates back to an early twentieth-century publication written by a legal scholar who would later become supreme court justice Louis D. Brandeis named “The Jewish Question; How to Solve it”. However, the agreement truly solidified after the 1967 conflict during 1967. Before then, American Jewry contained a vulnerable but enduring coexistence between groups holding different opinions about the requirement for Israel – pro-Israel advocates, neutral parties and opponents.

Historical Context

That coexistence persisted through the post-war decades, in remnants of Jewish socialism, through the non-aligned American Jewish Committee, in the anti-Zionist Jewish organization and comparable entities. Regarding Chancellor Finkelstein, the leader of the theological institution, pro-Israel ideology was more spiritual than political, and he forbade the singing of the Israeli national anthem, the national song, at religious school events in the early 1960s. Nor were support for Israel the centerpiece within modern Orthodox Judaism prior to the 1967 conflict. Different Jewish identity models coexisted.

Yet after Israel overcame its neighbors during the 1967 conflict during that period, seizing land comprising Palestinian territories, Gaza Strip, the Golan and East Jerusalem, US Jewish connection with the nation underwent significant transformation. Israel’s victory, along with enduring anxieties of a “second Holocaust”, produced a developing perspective in the country’s critical importance within Jewish identity, and a source of pride for its strength. Discourse regarding the remarkable nature of the success and the freeing of land assigned the movement a spiritual, almost redemptive, importance. During that enthusiastic period, much of existing hesitation regarding Zionism vanished. In that decade, Publication editor Podhoretz declared: “We are all Zionists now.”

The Agreement and Its Boundaries

The pro-Israel agreement excluded the ultra-Orthodox – who largely believed a Jewish state should only be ushered in by a traditional rendering of redemption – but united Reform, Conservative, contemporary Orthodox and most non-affiliated Jews. The common interpretation of this agreement, what became known as left-leaning Zionism, was based on the idea about the nation as a democratic and democratic – albeit ethnocentric – state. Many American Jews saw the administration of local, Syria's and Egypt's territories following the war as provisional, thinking that an agreement was imminent that would ensure Jewish population majority in pre-1967 Israel and regional acceptance of Israel.

Multiple generations of American Jews grew up with support for Israel an essential component of their Jewish identity. The nation became an important element in Jewish learning. Yom Ha'atzmaut evolved into a religious observance. National symbols decorated most synagogues. Summer camps integrated with Hebrew music and the study of the language, with Israelis visiting and teaching US young people Israeli customs. Trips to the nation expanded and reached new heights with Birthright Israel in 1999, when a free trip to the nation became available to US Jewish youth. Israel permeated virtually all areas of Jewish American identity.

Shifting Landscape

Ironically, during this period post-1967, American Jewry grew skilled regarding denominational coexistence. Open-mindedness and dialogue between Jewish denominations increased.

Except when it came to Zionism and Israel – that represented tolerance reached its limit. One could identify as a conservative supporter or a leftwing Zionist, but support for Israel as a Jewish state was assumed, and challenging that perspective placed you beyond accepted boundaries – an “Un-Jew”, as a Jewish periodical described it in writing in 2021.

Yet presently, amid of the destruction of Gaza, starvation, dead and orphaned children and frustration over the denial of many fellow Jews who refuse to recognize their involvement, that unity has broken down. The liberal Zionist “center” {has lost|no longer