🔗 Share this article

It has been the deadly assault of October 7, 2023, which shook global Jewish populations more than any event following the creation of the Jewish state.

Within Jewish communities the event proved deeply traumatic. For the state of Israel, it was a significant embarrassment. The entire Zionist movement was founded on the presumption that the nation would prevent things like this repeating.

Military action seemed necessary. But the response undertaken by Israel – the comprehensive devastation of Gaza, the killing and maiming of many thousands of civilians – constituted a specific policy. This particular approach created complexity in the perspective of many Jewish Americans processed the October 7th events that triggered it, and presently makes difficult the community's commemoration of that date. In what way can people grieve and remember a tragedy targeting their community in the midst of devastation experienced by other individuals in your name?

The Complexity of Remembrance

The difficulty in grieving exists because of the fact that little unity prevails as to the implications of these developments. Actually, among Jewish Americans, the recent twenty-four months have seen the disintegration of a fifty-year unity about the Zionist movement.

The beginnings of a Zionist consensus across American Jewish populations extends as far back as writings from 1915 by the lawyer and then future high court jurist Louis D. Brandeis named “The Jewish Problem; How to Solve it”. Yet the unity truly solidified subsequent to the six-day war during 1967. Previously, American Jewry contained a delicate yet functioning parallel existence across various segments that had a range of views about the requirement of a Jewish state – Zionists, non-Zionists and anti-Zionists.

Historical Context

That coexistence continued during the mid-twentieth century, through surviving aspects of leftist Jewish organizations, through the non-aligned Jewish communal organization, among the opposing religious group and similar institutions. Regarding Chancellor Finkelstein, the head of the Jewish Theological Seminary, pro-Israel ideology was more spiritual instead of governmental, and he forbade singing Israel's anthem, Hatikvah, during seminary ceremonies during that period. Additionally, support for Israel the centerpiece of Modern Orthodoxy prior to that war. Different Jewish identity models remained present.

Yet after Israel overcame its neighbors in that war that year, seizing land such as Palestinian territories, Gaza, the Golan and East Jerusalem, US Jewish connection with the country underwent significant transformation. The triumphant outcome, combined with persistent concerns about another genocide, resulted in a developing perspective about the nation's vital role within Jewish identity, and created pride regarding its endurance. Language concerning the remarkable nature of the outcome and the “liberation” of areas gave Zionism a theological, potentially salvific, meaning. During that enthusiastic period, a significant portion of the remaining ambivalence toward Israel dissipated. In that decade, Commentary magazine editor Podhoretz declared: “Everyone supports Zionism today.”

The Consensus and Restrictions

The Zionist consensus left out strictly Orthodox communities – who generally maintained a Jewish state should only be established by a traditional rendering of the Messiah – yet included Reform, Conservative, contemporary Orthodox and nearly all unaffiliated individuals. The most popular form of the consensus, identified as left-leaning Zionism, was established on the idea about the nation as a progressive and democratic – though Jewish-centered – nation. Many American Jews considered the control of Palestinian, Syrian and Egypt's territories after 1967 as provisional, believing that a solution was imminent that would maintain Jewish population majority within Israel's original borders and regional acceptance of the nation.

Several cohorts of Jewish Americans were thus brought up with support for Israel a core part of their identity as Jews. The state transformed into an important element within religious instruction. Yom Ha'atzmaut evolved into a religious observance. Israeli flags decorated most synagogues. Seasonal activities became infused with national melodies and the study of the language, with Israelis visiting educating American teenagers Israeli culture. Travel to Israel expanded and peaked through Birthright programs in 1999, when a free trip to the nation was offered to young American Jews. The state affected virtually all areas of the American Jewish experience.

Shifting Landscape

Interestingly, in these decades following the war, Jewish Americans grew skilled regarding denominational coexistence. Tolerance and communication across various Jewish groups grew.

Yet concerning Zionism and Israel – that’s where diversity found its boundary. You could be a right-leaning advocate or a liberal advocate, however endorsement of the nation as a Jewish state was assumed, and criticizing that perspective positioned you beyond accepted boundaries – a non-conformist, as Tablet magazine labeled it in a piece in 2021.

But now, amid of the devastation of Gaza, starvation, young victims and outrage regarding the refusal by numerous Jewish individuals who avoid admitting their involvement, that consensus has collapsed. The moderate Zionist position {has lost|no longer