🔗 Share this article

It has been the deadly assault of the events of October 7th, which profoundly impacted Jewish communities worldwide more than any event following the establishment of the state of Israel.

Among Jewish people it was shocking. For Israel as a nation, the situation represented a significant embarrassment. The whole Zionist endeavor rested on the assumption that the nation could stop similar tragedies from ever happening again.

Military action appeared unavoidable. However, the particular response undertaken by Israel – the comprehensive devastation of Gaza, the casualties of tens of thousands non-combatants – constituted a specific policy. This selected path complicated how many US Jewish community members understood the attack that precipitated the response, and presently makes difficult their remembrance of the day. In what way can people mourn and commemorate a tragedy affecting their nation in the midst of an atrocity done to another people in your name?

The Complexity of Remembrance

The complexity in grieving exists because of the circumstance where little unity prevails as to the significance of these events. In fact, among Jewish Americans, the last two years have experienced the breakdown of a half-century-old unity on Zionism itself.

The beginnings of pro-Israel unity within US Jewish communities extends as far back as a 1915 essay written by a legal scholar subsequently appointed supreme court justice Louis Brandeis titled “Jewish Issues; Finding Solutions”. However, the agreement really takes hold after the six-day war during 1967. Before then, American Jewry maintained a delicate yet functioning cohabitation between groups which maintained a range of views regarding the need for a Jewish nation – pro-Israel advocates, non-Zionists and opponents.

Previous Developments

Such cohabitation continued throughout the mid-twentieth century, within remaining elements of leftist Jewish organizations, in the non-Zionist US Jewish group, among the opposing American Council for Judaism and other organizations. Regarding Chancellor Finkelstein, the head of the theological institution, the Zionist movement had greater religious significance instead of governmental, and he prohibited performance of Israel's anthem, the national song, at JTS ordinations during that period. Nor were Zionism and pro-Israelism the central focus for contemporary Orthodox communities until after the 1967 conflict. Different Jewish identity models coexisted.

But after Israel overcame neighboring countries in that war that year, occupying territories such as the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and Jerusalem's eastern sector, the American Jewish relationship to Israel evolved considerably. The military success, along with longstanding fears regarding repeated persecution, led to a growing belief in the country’s vital role for Jewish communities, and generated admiration for its strength. Discourse about the “miraculous” nature of the victory and the reclaiming of territory gave Zionism a spiritual, almost redemptive, meaning. In that triumphant era, considerable existing hesitation about Zionism disappeared. In that decade, Writer Norman Podhoretz stated: “We are all Zionists now.”

The Consensus and Restrictions

The pro-Israel agreement did not include the ultra-Orthodox – who generally maintained Israel should only emerge through traditional interpretation of redemption – yet included Reform, Conservative, Modern Orthodox and most non-affiliated Jews. The common interpretation of the consensus, identified as left-leaning Zionism, was founded on the conviction in Israel as a democratic and democratic – though Jewish-centered – nation. Numerous US Jews viewed the administration of Arab, Syria's and Egyptian lands after 1967 as provisional, assuming that a solution was imminent that would maintain Jewish population majority in pre-1967 Israel and Middle Eastern approval of the state.

Multiple generations of Jewish Americans grew up with pro-Israel ideology an essential component of their identity as Jews. The state transformed into an important element within religious instruction. Israel’s Independence Day evolved into a religious observance. National symbols were displayed in many temples. Summer camps were permeated with Hebrew music and learning of contemporary Hebrew, with Israelis visiting educating American youth Israeli customs. Travel to Israel expanded and achieved record numbers with Birthright Israel by 1999, offering complimentary travel to Israel was offered to US Jewish youth. The nation influenced virtually all areas of the American Jewish experience.

Evolving Situation

Interestingly, during this period post-1967, US Jewish communities grew skilled regarding denominational coexistence. Open-mindedness and dialogue among different Jewish movements grew.

However regarding support for Israel – that’s where pluralism reached its limit. Individuals might align with a conservative supporter or a leftwing Zionist, yet backing Israel as a Jewish state was assumed, and criticizing that perspective placed you beyond accepted boundaries – outside the community, as Tablet magazine termed it in a piece that year.

But now, during of the devastation within Gaza, famine, dead and orphaned children and outrage about the rejection of many fellow Jews who avoid admitting their responsibility, that consensus has disintegrated. The centrist pro-Israel view {has lost|no longer