🔗 Share this article

Marking two years after the horrific attack of 7 October 2023, which shook world Jewry unlike anything else since the founding of the Jewish state.

Within Jewish communities it was profoundly disturbing. For the Israeli government, it was a profound disgrace. The whole Zionist movement rested on the assumption which held that the Jewish state could stop things like this occurring in the future.

A response seemed necessary. However, the particular response that Israel implemented – the widespread destruction of Gaza, the killing and maiming of numerous of civilians – constituted a specific policy. This particular approach made more difficult the perspective of many US Jewish community members understood the attack that set it in motion, and presently makes difficult the community's commemoration of the day. How does one grieve and remember a tragedy against your people in the midst of an atrocity experienced by other individuals attributed to their identity?

The Complexity of Remembrance

The difficulty in grieving stems from the circumstance where no agreement exists regarding the significance of these events. In fact, within US Jewish circles, this two-year period have seen the breakdown of a half-century-old consensus on Zionism itself.

The early development of Zionist agreement among American Jewry can be traced to a 1915 essay written by a legal scholar who would later become high court jurist Louis D. Brandeis titled “Jewish Issues; Finding Solutions”. Yet the unity became firmly established subsequent to the six-day war in 1967. Previously, American Jewry housed a vulnerable but enduring coexistence across various segments which maintained different opinions about the requirement for Israel – pro-Israel advocates, neutral parties and opponents.

Previous Developments

That coexistence continued through the post-war decades, within remaining elements of Jewish socialism, in the non-Zionist American Jewish Committee, in the anti-Zionist Jewish organization and comparable entities. For Louis Finkelstein, the head of the theological institution, pro-Israel ideology was more spiritual instead of governmental, and he prohibited performance of the Israeli national anthem, the Israeli national anthem, at religious school events during that period. Additionally, support for Israel the central focus for contemporary Orthodox communities prior to the six-day war. Alternative Jewish perspectives coexisted.

Yet after Israel routed neighboring countries in that war during that period, seizing land including Palestinian territories, Gaza Strip, the Golan and East Jerusalem, US Jewish connection with the country underwent significant transformation. The military success, along with persistent concerns regarding repeated persecution, produced a developing perspective regarding Israel's essential significance within Jewish identity, and a source of pride regarding its endurance. Language regarding the extraordinary quality of the victory and the reclaiming of areas assigned the Zionist project a theological, almost redemptive, importance. In those heady years, considerable existing hesitation toward Israel dissipated. During the seventies, Writer the commentator declared: “We are all Zionists now.”

The Consensus and Its Boundaries

The pro-Israel agreement left out the ultra-Orthodox – who typically thought a Jewish state should only emerge by a traditional rendering of redemption – however joined Reform, Conservative Judaism, contemporary Orthodox and the majority of non-affiliated Jews. The common interpretation of the consensus, identified as liberal Zionism, was founded on the conviction about the nation as a liberal and liberal – albeit ethnocentric – state. Numerous US Jews saw the administration of Palestinian, Syria's and Egypt's territories after 1967 as provisional, thinking that a resolution was imminent that would guarantee Jewish demographic dominance within Israel's original borders and Middle Eastern approval of the state.

Multiple generations of US Jews were thus brought up with support for Israel a fundamental aspect of their Jewish identity. The nation became an important element in Jewish learning. Yom Ha'atzmaut became a Jewish holiday. Israeli flags were displayed in many temples. Seasonal activities integrated with national melodies and the study of modern Hebrew, with Israelis visiting and teaching US young people Israeli customs. Travel to Israel increased and achieved record numbers with Birthright Israel in 1999, when a free trip to the country was offered to Jewish young adults. The state affected virtually all areas of the American Jewish experience.

Evolving Situation

Interestingly, throughout these years after 1967, US Jewish communities became adept at religious pluralism. Acceptance and communication across various Jewish groups increased.

Except when it came to support for Israel – that represented diversity reached its limit. Individuals might align with a right-leaning advocate or a liberal advocate, yet backing Israel as a Jewish state remained unquestioned, and challenging that narrative placed you beyond accepted boundaries – an “Un-Jew”, as a Jewish periodical labeled it in writing that year.

But now, during of the destruction in Gaza, food shortages, dead and orphaned children and outrage about the rejection within Jewish communities who decline to acknowledge their responsibility, that unity has disintegrated. The centrist pro-Israel view {has lost|no longer