🔗 Share this article

Two years have passed since the deadly assault of 7 October 2023, an event that deeply affected world Jewry more than any event following the establishment of the Jewish state.

Among Jewish people the event proved profoundly disturbing. For the Israeli government, the situation represented deeply humiliating. The whole Zionist endeavor was founded on the belief which held that the nation would ensure against similar tragedies from ever happening again.

Military action was inevitable. But the response that Israel implemented – the widespread destruction of the Gaza Strip, the killing and maiming of tens of thousands ordinary people – was a choice. And this choice complicated the perspective of many American Jews processed the attack that set it in motion, and it now complicates their observance of the anniversary. In what way can people honor and reflect on an atrocity targeting their community while simultaneously an atrocity experienced by another people in your name?

The Challenge of Remembrance

The challenge 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 seen the collapse of a decades-long consensus about the Zionist movement.

The origins of pro-Israel unity among American Jewry can be traced to an early twentieth-century publication by the lawyer who would later become high court jurist Justice Brandeis titled “Jewish Issues; Finding Solutions”. However, the agreement truly solidified after the Six-Day War in 1967. Before then, American Jewry contained a vulnerable but enduring cohabitation among different factions holding a range of views regarding the necessity of a Jewish state – pro-Israel advocates, non-Zionists and opponents.

Previous Developments

This parallel existence persisted throughout the post-war decades, through surviving aspects of socialist Jewish movements, in the non-Zionist US Jewish group, within the critical Jewish organization and comparable entities. For Louis Finkelstein, the chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary, the Zionist movement was more spiritual instead of governmental, and he prohibited performance of Hatikvah, the Israeli national anthem, at JTS ordinations during that period. Nor were Zionism and pro-Israelism the centerpiece for contemporary Orthodox communities until after the six-day war. Alternative Jewish perspectives remained present.

However following Israel overcame its neighbors in the six-day war during that period, occupying territories such as Palestinian territories, Gaza, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, US Jewish connection with Israel underwent significant transformation. The military success, combined with persistent concerns regarding repeated persecution, led to a developing perspective in the country’s vital role to the Jewish people, and generated admiration for its strength. Rhetoric concerning the extraordinary quality of the victory and the freeing of areas assigned the Zionist project a religious, even messianic, importance. During that enthusiastic period, considerable previous uncertainty toward Israel dissipated. In the early 1970s, Publication editor Norman Podhoretz stated: “Zionism unites us all.”

The Consensus and Its Limits

The Zionist consensus left out Haredi Jews – who typically thought a nation should only be established via conventional understanding of redemption – yet included Reform, Conservative Judaism, Modern Orthodox and the majority of non-affiliated Jews. The common interpretation of the unified position, identified as liberal Zionism, was founded on the idea in Israel as a liberal and democratic – albeit ethnocentric – country. Countless Jewish Americans considered the administration of Palestinian, Syria's and Egypt's territories after 1967 as temporary, believing that an agreement was forthcoming that would guarantee a Jewish majority in pre-1967 Israel and neighbor recognition of the state.

Several cohorts of American Jews grew up with support for Israel an essential component of their religious identity. The nation became a key component in Jewish learning. Yom Ha'atzmaut turned into a celebration. Blue and white banners adorned most synagogues. Seasonal activities were permeated with Hebrew music and education of the language, with Israeli guests and teaching American teenagers national traditions. Trips to the nation expanded and achieved record numbers through Birthright programs by 1999, offering complimentary travel to Israel was offered to US Jewish youth. The state affected virtually all areas of US Jewish life.

Shifting Landscape

Ironically, during this period post-1967, US Jewish communities developed expertise regarding denominational coexistence. Acceptance and communication among different Jewish movements expanded.

Yet concerning Zionism and Israel – there existed diversity found its boundary. You could be a conservative supporter or a leftwing Zionist, yet backing Israel as a majority-Jewish country was assumed, and questioning that perspective positioned you outside mainstream views – a non-conformist, as one publication described it in a piece in 2021.

But now, under the weight of the destruction of Gaza, famine, child casualties and anger about the rejection within Jewish communities who decline to acknowledge their complicity, that consensus has collapsed. The moderate Zionist position {has lost|no longer