🔗 Share this article

Marking two years after that deadly assault of 7 October 2023, an event that deeply affected world Jewry unlike anything else since the establishment of the state of Israel.

Within Jewish communities the event proved profoundly disturbing. For the Israeli government, the situation represented deeply humiliating. The entire Zionist project rested on the belief that the Jewish state would ensure against similar tragedies from ever happening again.

Some form of retaliation seemed necessary. But the response that Israel implemented – the obliteration of Gaza, the casualties of numerous ordinary people – constituted a specific policy. And this choice complicated the perspective of many US Jewish community members grappled with the initial assault that set it in motion, and currently challenges their observance of the anniversary. How can someone mourn and commemorate a tragedy affecting their nation while simultaneously an atrocity experienced by other individuals connected to their community?

The Complexity of Remembrance

The complexity surrounding remembrance stems from the circumstance where no agreement exists as to the significance of these events. In fact, within US Jewish circles, the last two years have witnessed the collapse of a half-century-old agreement about the Zionist movement.

The beginnings of a Zionist consensus among American Jewry dates back to an early twentieth-century publication authored by an attorney and then future supreme court justice Louis D. Brandeis called “The Jewish Question; How to Solve it”. But the consensus truly solidified following the Six-Day War in 1967. Before then, Jewish Americans contained a delicate yet functioning cohabitation among different factions which maintained different opinions about the need for a Jewish nation – pro-Israel advocates, neutral parties and anti-Zionists.

Historical Context

That coexistence continued through the 1950s and 60s, in remnants of socialist Jewish movements, in the non-Zionist Jewish communal organization, in the anti-Zionist Jewish organization and other organizations. In the view of Louis Finkelstein, the chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary, the Zionist movement was more spiritual than political, and he prohibited performance of the Israeli national anthem, the Israeli national anthem, at religious school events in the early 1960s. Nor were support for Israel the main element of Modern Orthodoxy until after the 1967 conflict. Alternative Jewish perspectives remained present.

But after Israel routed adjacent nations in that war in 1967, occupying territories including Palestinian territories, Gaza, the Golan and East Jerusalem, US Jewish relationship to the country changed dramatically. The military success, combined with longstanding fears of a “second Holocaust”, resulted in a developing perspective about the nation's essential significance for Jewish communities, and created pride in its resilience. Language concerning the extraordinary quality of the outcome and the “liberation” of territory gave Zionism a religious, potentially salvific, importance. In those heady years, a significant portion of previous uncertainty about Zionism dissipated. During the seventies, Writer Podhoretz stated: “Zionism unites us all.”

The Unity and Its Limits

The pro-Israel agreement excluded strictly Orthodox communities – who generally maintained a nation should only emerge through traditional interpretation of the Messiah – yet included Reform Judaism, Conservative, contemporary Orthodox and most secular Jews. The most popular form of this agreement, later termed progressive Zionism, was founded on the idea about the nation as a democratic and democratic – though Jewish-centered – state. Many American Jews viewed the administration of Arab, Syria's and Egypt's territories post-1967 as provisional, believing that an agreement would soon emerge that would guarantee a Jewish majority within Israel's original borders and neighbor recognition of Israel.

Two generations of American Jews were thus brought up with Zionism a core part of their religious identity. The nation became a central part in Jewish learning. Yom Ha'atzmaut became a Jewish holiday. Blue and white banners decorated most synagogues. Summer camps became infused with national melodies and learning of modern Hebrew, with Israelis visiting instructing American youth Israeli culture. Travel to Israel grew and reached new heights with Birthright Israel during that year, offering complimentary travel to the country was offered to Jewish young adults. The nation influenced nearly every aspect of Jewish American identity.

Evolving Situation

Paradoxically, during this period after 1967, American Jewry grew skilled at religious pluralism. Acceptance and discussion across various Jewish groups expanded.

Yet concerning Zionism and Israel – there existed tolerance found its boundary. You could be a rightwing Zionist or a progressive supporter, but support for Israel as a Jewish state remained unquestioned, and questioning that perspective placed you outside the consensus – outside the community, as one publication labeled it in an essay in 2021.

But now, during of the destruction of Gaza, starvation, young victims and anger about the rejection of many fellow Jews who decline to acknowledge their responsibility, that consensus has disintegrated. The liberal Zionist “center” {has lost|no longer