🔗 Share this article

Two years have passed since the mass murder of the events of October 7th, which profoundly impacted Jewish communities worldwide like no other occurrence since the creation of Israel as a nation.

For Jews the event proved deeply traumatic. For the Israeli government, the situation represented a profound disgrace. The whole Zionist project rested on the presumption that the Jewish state would ensure against such atrocities occurring in the future.

Military action seemed necessary. Yet the chosen course undertaken by Israel – the obliteration of Gaza, the killing and maiming of tens of thousands of civilians – constituted a specific policy. This selected path complicated how many American Jews understood the initial assault that triggered it, and presently makes difficult the community's remembrance of the anniversary. How can someone grieve and remember a tragedy affecting their nation during devastation experienced by a different population connected to their community?

The Complexity of Remembrance

The complexity in grieving lies in the circumstance where no agreement exists as to the significance of these events. In fact, within US Jewish circles, this two-year period have seen the disintegration of a decades-long unity about the Zionist movement.

The early development of a Zionist consensus within US Jewish communities can be traced to an early twentieth-century publication written by a legal scholar subsequently appointed high court jurist Louis D. Brandeis called “The Jewish Question; Finding Solutions”. However, the agreement became firmly established after the 1967 conflict in 1967. Before then, American Jewry housed a fragile but stable cohabitation between groups holding different opinions concerning the need for Israel – Zionists, non-Zionists and anti-Zionists.

Historical Context

Such cohabitation persisted during the post-war decades, in remnants of socialist Jewish movements, within the neutral US Jewish group, in the anti-Zionist religious group and other organizations. In the view of Louis Finkelstein, the chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary, the Zionist movement was more spiritual rather than political, and he forbade performance of Hatikvah, the Israeli national anthem, during seminary ceremonies in those years. Nor were Zionism and pro-Israelism the main element of Modern Orthodoxy prior to the six-day war. Different Jewish identity models remained present.

But after Israel routed adjacent nations in that war during that period, taking control of areas comprising the West Bank, Gaza Strip, the Golan and East Jerusalem, the American Jewish perspective on the country evolved considerably. The military success, coupled with enduring anxieties regarding repeated persecution, led to a developing perspective about the nation's vital role for Jewish communities, and generated admiration regarding its endurance. Discourse about the extraordinary aspect of the victory and the “liberation” of territory gave the Zionist project a theological, potentially salvific, meaning. During that enthusiastic period, a significant portion of previous uncertainty about Zionism vanished. In the early 1970s, Writer Podhoretz stated: “Everyone supports Zionism today.”

The Agreement and Its Limits

The unified position excluded Haredi Jews – who largely believed a Jewish state should only emerge via conventional understanding of the messiah – but united Reform, Conservative, contemporary Orthodox and most unaffiliated individuals. The most popular form of this agreement, later termed progressive Zionism, was founded on the idea about the nation as a progressive and liberal – albeit ethnocentric – country. Countless Jewish Americans considered the administration of Palestinian, Syria's and Egyptian lands post-1967 as not permanent, thinking that a resolution was imminent that would maintain Jewish demographic dominance in Israel proper and neighbor recognition of the nation.

Two generations of US Jews grew up with Zionism a fundamental aspect of their Jewish identity. The state transformed into an important element of Jewish education. Israel’s Independence Day evolved into a religious observance. Israeli flags adorned religious institutions. Summer camps integrated with Israeli songs and the study of contemporary Hebrew, with Israeli guests instructing American teenagers Israeli customs. Visits to Israel expanded and reached new heights through Birthright programs during that year, providing no-cost visits to the nation became available to young American Jews. The state affected almost the entirety of Jewish American identity.

Changing Dynamics

Ironically, in these decades after 1967, US Jewish communities became adept at religious pluralism. Tolerance and discussion between Jewish denominations expanded.

However regarding the Israeli situation – that represented tolerance ended. Individuals might align with a right-leaning advocate or a progressive supporter, but support for Israel as a Jewish homeland was a given, and criticizing that position categorized you outside mainstream views – a non-conformist, as one publication labeled it in an essay recently.

However currently, during of the devastation within Gaza, food shortages, child casualties and outrage over the denial within Jewish communities who avoid admitting their responsibility, that unity has collapsed. The liberal Zionist “center” {has lost|no longer