🔗 Share this article

Two years have passed since the horrific attack of 7 October 2023, an event that shook global Jewish populations like no other occurrence following the establishment of the state of Israel.

Among Jewish people the event proved profoundly disturbing. For the Israeli government, it was deeply humiliating. The entire Zionist project was founded on the belief that the Jewish state would ensure against similar tragedies repeating.

A response seemed necessary. Yet the chosen course undertaken by Israel – the comprehensive devastation of Gaza, the casualties of tens of thousands non-combatants – represented a decision. This selected path created complexity in how many Jewish Americans understood the initial assault that set it in motion, and presently makes difficult the community's remembrance of the day. In what way can people grieve and remember a horrific event affecting their nation in the midst of a catastrophe done to another people attributed to their identity?

The Challenge of Remembrance

The challenge in grieving exists because of the circumstance where no agreement exists regarding the significance of these events. In fact, within US Jewish circles, the recent twenty-four months have witnessed the disintegration of a decades-long agreement about the Zionist movement.

The beginnings of pro-Israel unity among American Jewry dates back to a 1915 essay written by a legal scholar who would later become Supreme Court judge Louis D. Brandeis titled “Jewish Issues; How to Solve it”. However, the agreement really takes hold subsequent to the Six-Day War during 1967. Previously, Jewish Americans maintained a fragile but stable parallel existence among different factions which maintained different opinions about the requirement for Israel – Zionists, non-Zionists and anti-Zionists.

Previous Developments

That coexistence persisted during the post-war decades, within remaining elements of leftist Jewish organizations, through the non-aligned US Jewish group, within the critical Jewish organization and comparable entities. For Louis Finkelstein, the leader of the theological institution, pro-Israel ideology had greater religious significance instead of governmental, and he did not permit performance of Israel's anthem, the national song, at religious school events during that period. Additionally, Zionist ideology the main element for contemporary Orthodox communities until after the six-day war. Alternative Jewish perspectives coexisted.

Yet after Israel routed its neighbors during the 1967 conflict that year, taking control of areas comprising Palestinian territories, Gaza, the Golan and East Jerusalem, the American Jewish perspective on the country underwent significant transformation. Israel’s victory, combined with enduring anxieties of a “second Holocaust”, resulted in a developing perspective regarding Israel's essential significance to the Jewish people, and created pride in its resilience. Language concerning the extraordinary quality of the success and the freeing of areas gave the movement a theological, even messianic, meaning. During that enthusiastic period, much of the remaining ambivalence about Zionism vanished. During the seventies, Publication editor Norman Podhoretz stated: “We are all Zionists now.”

The Agreement and Its Limits

The pro-Israel agreement did not include Haredi Jews – who largely believed a nation should only emerge by a traditional rendering of the messiah – however joined Reform Judaism, Conservative, contemporary Orthodox and the majority of secular Jews. The predominant version of the unified position, what became known as left-leaning Zionism, was established on the conviction in Israel as a liberal and liberal – while majority-Jewish – nation. Many American Jews saw the administration of local, Syria's and Egyptian lands post-1967 as not permanent, believing that an agreement would soon emerge that would maintain a Jewish majority in pre-1967 Israel and Middle Eastern approval of Israel.

Several cohorts of American Jews grew up with Zionism a core part of their religious identity. The nation became an important element of Jewish education. Israeli national day turned into a celebration. National symbols were displayed in many temples. Youth programs became infused with national melodies and learning of modern Hebrew, with Israelis visiting instructing US young people Israeli customs. Trips to the nation grew and peaked with Birthright Israel during that year, offering complimentary travel to the country was provided to Jewish young adults. The state affected virtually all areas of the American Jewish experience.

Shifting Landscape

Interestingly, throughout these years following the war, American Jewry grew skilled in religious diversity. Acceptance and communication between Jewish denominations increased.

Except when it came to support for Israel – there existed pluralism ended. Individuals might align with a rightwing Zionist or a progressive supporter, yet backing Israel as a Jewish state was assumed, and challenging that narrative positioned you outside the consensus – outside the community, as a Jewish periodical labeled it in writing that year.

However currently, during of the destruction in Gaza, famine, child casualties and anger about the rejection of many fellow Jews who refuse to recognize their complicity, that agreement has disintegrated. The centrist pro-Israel view {has lost|no longer