🔗 Share this article

Marking two years after that deadly assault of October 7, 2023, an event that profoundly impacted global Jewish populations like no other occurrence following the establishment of Israel as a nation.

For Jews it was profoundly disturbing. For Israel as a nation, it was deeply humiliating. The entire Zionist movement was founded on the assumption which held that the nation would prevent similar tragedies from ever happening again.

Some form of retaliation appeared unavoidable. Yet the chosen course Israel pursued – the comprehensive devastation of Gaza, the killing and maiming of many thousands ordinary people – constituted a specific policy. This particular approach created complexity in the way numerous American Jews processed the initial assault that triggered it, and currently challenges the community's observance of that date. How does one grieve and remember a horrific event against your people during an atrocity being inflicted upon a different population in your name?

The Difficulty of Remembrance

The complexity surrounding remembrance lies in the circumstance where little unity prevails about what any of this means. In fact, for the American Jewish community, the recent twenty-four months have seen the breakdown of a half-century-old unity on Zionism itself.

The early development of pro-Israel unity within US Jewish communities dates back to an early twentieth-century publication authored by an attorney and then future supreme court justice Justice Brandeis named “The Jewish Question; Finding Solutions”. But the consensus really takes hold following the six-day war that year. Before then, American Jewry contained a vulnerable but enduring cohabitation across various segments that had diverse perspectives concerning the necessity of a Jewish state – Zionists, neutral parties and opponents.

Historical Context

This parallel existence continued during the 1950s and 60s, through surviving aspects of Jewish socialism, through the non-aligned American Jewish Committee, within the critical religious group and comparable entities. Regarding Chancellor Finkelstein, the chancellor at JTS, the Zionist movement had greater religious significance instead of governmental, and he forbade performance of Hatikvah, the national song, at religious school events during that period. Nor were support for Israel the main element of Modern Orthodoxy until after the 1967 conflict. Different Jewish identity models coexisted.

Yet after Israel routed adjacent nations during the 1967 conflict during that period, seizing land including the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and Jerusalem's eastern sector, US Jewish perspective on the country underwent significant transformation. The military success, combined with persistent concerns regarding repeated persecution, led to a growing belief in the country’s critical importance within Jewish identity, and created pride in its resilience. Rhetoric concerning the “miraculous” nature of the success and the reclaiming of territory gave the movement a religious, even messianic, meaning. During that enthusiastic period, much of previous uncertainty about Zionism vanished. In that decade, Publication editor the commentator famously proclaimed: “We are all Zionists now.”

The Unity and Its Boundaries

The unified position left out strictly Orthodox communities – who generally maintained a Jewish state should only be established by a traditional rendering of redemption – yet included Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism, Modern Orthodox and most unaffiliated individuals. The predominant version of the unified position, what became known as progressive Zionism, was based on the idea in Israel as a democratic and democratic – while majority-Jewish – nation. Numerous US Jews considered the control of Arab, Syria's and Egyptian lands after 1967 as provisional, thinking that an agreement was forthcoming that would maintain Jewish population majority in Israel proper and neighbor recognition of the state.

Several cohorts of US Jews grew up with Zionism a core part of their Jewish identity. The nation became a key component within religious instruction. Israeli national day evolved into a religious observance. Blue and white banners were displayed in religious institutions. Seasonal activities became infused with Hebrew music and learning of contemporary Hebrew, with Israeli guests and teaching US young people national traditions. Trips to the nation grew and reached new heights through Birthright programs in 1999, providing no-cost visits to the country was provided to young American Jews. The state affected virtually all areas of the American Jewish experience.

Evolving Situation

Ironically, in these decades after 1967, US Jewish communities grew skilled regarding denominational coexistence. Open-mindedness and discussion between Jewish denominations grew.

Yet concerning the Israeli situation – that represented tolerance found its boundary. You could be a conservative supporter or a liberal advocate, yet backing Israel as a majority-Jewish country was assumed, and challenging that narrative categorized you beyond accepted boundaries – an “Un-Jew”, as one publication described it in writing in 2021.

However currently, under the weight of the destruction in Gaza, starvation, child casualties and frustration regarding the refusal of many fellow Jews who decline to acknowledge their involvement, that agreement has broken down. The liberal Zionist “center” {has lost|no longer