🔗 Share this article

It has been that mass murder of the events of October 7th, which shook world Jewry unlike anything else since the establishment of the state of Israel.

Within Jewish communities it was deeply traumatic. For the Israeli government, it was deeply humiliating. The entire Zionist movement rested on the presumption which held that the Jewish state would prevent such atrocities from ever happening again.

A response appeared unavoidable. Yet the chosen course Israel pursued – the widespread destruction of the Gaza Strip, the killing and maiming of numerous ordinary people – constituted a specific policy. And this choice made more difficult the way numerous US Jewish community members grappled with the October 7th events that precipitated the response, and currently challenges their observance of the anniversary. In what way can people grieve and remember a tragedy affecting their nation during an atrocity done to other individuals attributed to their identity?

The Difficulty of Mourning

The complexity surrounding remembrance stems from the circumstance where little unity prevails regarding the implications of these developments. Actually, among Jewish Americans, this two-year period have seen the breakdown of a half-century-old unity on Zionism itself.

The early development of Zionist agreement within US Jewish communities dates back to writings from 1915 authored by an attorney who would later become supreme court justice Louis Brandeis titled “Jewish Issues; How to Solve it”. But the consensus truly solidified subsequent to the Six-Day War in 1967. Before then, US Jewish communities contained a vulnerable but enduring cohabitation across various segments which maintained a range of views concerning the need of a Jewish state – Zionists, neutral parties and anti-Zionists.

Previous Developments

Such cohabitation continued throughout the 1950s and 60s, in remnants of socialist Jewish movements, through the non-aligned US Jewish group, in the anti-Zionist American Council for Judaism and comparable entities. Regarding Chancellor Finkelstein, the leader of the theological institution, Zionism had greater religious significance instead of governmental, and he prohibited the singing of the Israeli national anthem, Hatikvah, during seminary ceremonies in those years. Furthermore, Zionist ideology the main element of Modern Orthodoxy until after that war. Alternative Jewish perspectives coexisted.

But after Israel defeated neighboring countries in that war during that period, occupying territories including Palestinian territories, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and Jerusalem's eastern sector, US Jewish perspective on the country changed dramatically. The military success, coupled with persistent concerns about another genocide, produced a developing perspective regarding Israel's critical importance for Jewish communities, and created pride regarding its endurance. Language concerning the “miraculous” nature of the outcome and the “liberation” of areas assigned Zionism a spiritual, potentially salvific, significance. In that triumphant era, considerable the remaining ambivalence regarding Zionism disappeared. In the early 1970s, Publication editor Norman Podhoretz famously proclaimed: “Everyone supports Zionism today.”

The Agreement and Restrictions

The Zionist consensus did not include strictly Orthodox communities – who typically thought Israel should only be established by a traditional rendering of the Messiah – however joined Reform Judaism, Conservative, contemporary Orthodox and nearly all secular Jews. The predominant version of the unified position, identified as left-leaning Zionism, was established on the conviction in Israel as a progressive and democratic – albeit ethnocentric – state. Numerous US Jews saw the control of Palestinian, Syria's and Egypt's territories post-1967 as provisional, thinking that a solution was imminent that would ensure Jewish demographic dominance within Israel's original borders and Middle Eastern approval of the state.

Two generations of Jewish Americans grew up with support for Israel an essential component of their identity as Jews. The state transformed into a central part in Jewish learning. Israel’s Independence Day turned into a celebration. Israeli flags were displayed in religious institutions. Summer camps integrated with Israeli songs and learning of the language, with Israelis visiting and teaching American youth Israeli culture. Trips to the nation increased and reached new heights through Birthright programs by 1999, offering complimentary travel to the nation was offered to US Jewish youth. The state affected almost the entirety of the American Jewish experience.

Evolving Situation

Interestingly, throughout these years post-1967, US Jewish communities became adept regarding denominational coexistence. Tolerance and dialogue across various Jewish groups expanded.

Except when it came to the Israeli situation – that represented diversity found its boundary. You could be a rightwing Zionist or a leftwing Zionist, yet backing Israel as a Jewish state was a given, and criticizing that perspective placed you beyond accepted boundaries – a non-conformist, as a Jewish periodical labeled it in an essay that year.

Yet presently, during of the ruin of Gaza, starvation, young victims and outrage over the denial of many fellow Jews who avoid admitting their responsibility, that agreement has collapsed. The moderate Zionist position {has lost|no longer