🔗 Share this article

It has been that horrific attack of the events of October 7th, which deeply affected global Jewish populations like no other occurrence following the establishment of the state of Israel.

Within Jewish communities the event proved shocking. For the state of Israel, the situation represented a significant embarrassment. The whole Zionist project was founded on the assumption that the Jewish state would ensure against similar tragedies repeating.

Military action seemed necessary. However, the particular response that Israel implemented – the comprehensive devastation of Gaza, the deaths and injuries of many thousands non-combatants – was a choice. This particular approach made more difficult the perspective of many US Jewish community members processed the attack that triggered it, and it now complicates the community's remembrance of the day. In what way can people mourn and commemorate an atrocity targeting their community in the midst of devastation experienced by a different population in your name?

The Complexity of Remembrance

The difficulty surrounding remembrance lies in the reality that no agreement exists about the significance of these events. Indeed, within US Jewish circles, the recent twenty-four months have witnessed the breakdown of a decades-long consensus on Zionism itself.

The early development of pro-Israel unity across American Jewish populations dates back to an early twentieth-century publication authored by an attorney who would later become supreme court justice Louis Brandeis titled “The Jewish Problem; Addressing the Challenge”. But the consensus really takes hold subsequent to the six-day war in 1967. Before then, American Jewry maintained a vulnerable but enduring cohabitation between groups which maintained diverse perspectives regarding the requirement of a Jewish state – Zionists, neutral parties and anti-Zionists.

Previous Developments

That coexistence persisted throughout the mid-twentieth century, in remnants of leftist Jewish organizations, through the non-aligned Jewish communal organization, in the anti-Zionist Jewish organization and comparable entities. For Louis Finkelstein, the head of the Jewish Theological Seminary, pro-Israel ideology had greater religious significance instead of governmental, and he forbade singing Hatikvah, Hatikvah, at religious school events in the early 1960s. Furthermore, support for Israel the central focus of Modern Orthodoxy before the 1967 conflict. Jewish identitarian alternatives existed alongside.

But after Israel routed neighboring countries in the six-day war in 1967, seizing land including Palestinian territories, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and Jerusalem's eastern sector, the American Jewish relationship to Israel changed dramatically. The military success, combined with persistent concerns of a “second Holocaust”, led to an increasing conviction regarding Israel's critical importance for Jewish communities, and a source of pride regarding its endurance. Language concerning the “miraculous” quality of the success and the freeing of areas gave the movement a theological, potentially salvific, significance. In those heady years, considerable previous uncertainty about Zionism vanished. During the seventies, Publication editor the commentator stated: “We are all Zionists now.”

The Agreement and Restrictions

The pro-Israel agreement excluded Haredi Jews – who generally maintained a Jewish state should only be established by a traditional rendering of the Messiah – yet included Reform Judaism, Conservative, Modern Orthodox and nearly all secular Jews. The predominant version of this agreement, later termed liberal Zionism, was established on a belief regarding Israel as a progressive and liberal – while majority-Jewish – country. Many American Jews viewed the administration of local, Syrian and Egypt's territories following the war as provisional, assuming that a resolution was imminent that would maintain a Jewish majority in pre-1967 Israel and regional acceptance of Israel.

Two generations of US Jews grew up with pro-Israel ideology a fundamental aspect of their identity as Jews. The state transformed into a central part of Jewish education. Israel’s Independence Day turned into a celebration. National symbols adorned most synagogues. Seasonal activities were permeated with national melodies and education of modern Hebrew, with Israelis visiting educating American teenagers national traditions. Visits to Israel increased and achieved record numbers via educational trips in 1999, offering complimentary travel to the nation became available to Jewish young adults. Israel permeated nearly every aspect of Jewish American identity.

Changing Dynamics

Paradoxically, throughout these years following the war, American Jewry developed expertise at religious pluralism. Tolerance and dialogue among different Jewish movements expanded.

Except when it came to the Israeli situation – there existed pluralism reached its limit. You could be a conservative supporter or a progressive supporter, but support for Israel as a Jewish state remained unquestioned, and questioning that narrative placed you outside mainstream views – a non-conformist, as Tablet magazine labeled it in a piece recently.

However currently, under the weight of the devastation in Gaza, famine, dead and orphaned children and outrage about the rejection of many fellow Jews who decline to acknowledge their responsibility, that unity has collapsed. The centrist pro-Israel view {has lost|no longer