It has been the horrific attack of 7 October 2023, which profoundly impacted global Jewish populations like no other occurrence since the creation of the state of Israel.
Among Jewish people the event proved deeply traumatic. For the Israeli government, it was a significant embarrassment. The whole Zionist endeavor had been established on the assumption that the nation would prevent similar tragedies occurring in the future.
Some form of retaliation was inevitable. However, the particular response that Israel implemented – the widespread destruction of Gaza, the casualties of numerous of civilians – constituted a specific policy. And this choice complicated the perspective of many US Jewish community members grappled with the October 7th events that precipitated the response, and presently makes difficult their commemoration of the day. In what way can people mourn and commemorate an atrocity against your people in the midst of devastation experienced by a different population in your name?
The Challenge of Remembrance
The complexity of mourning exists because of the circumstance where there is no consensus as to what any of this means. In fact, among Jewish Americans, this two-year period have witnessed the collapse of a decades-long consensus regarding Zionism.
The early development of pro-Israel unity among American Jewry can be traced to a 1915 essay authored by an attorney who would later become supreme court justice Louis Brandeis titled “The Jewish Problem; How to Solve it”. But the consensus became firmly established following the six-day war that year. Previously, US Jewish communities housed a delicate yet functioning cohabitation among different factions which maintained different opinions concerning the need for a Jewish nation – pro-Israel advocates, non-Zionists and anti-Zionists.
Background Information
This parallel existence continued during the post-war decades, within remaining elements of Jewish socialism, through the non-aligned US Jewish group, among the opposing Jewish organization and comparable entities. Regarding Chancellor Finkelstein, the leader at JTS, Zionism had greater religious significance instead of governmental, and he forbade performance of the Israeli national anthem, the Israeli national anthem, during seminary ceremonies in those years. Furthermore, support for Israel the central focus for contemporary Orthodox communities before the 1967 conflict. Different Jewish identity models existed alongside.
But after Israel defeated neighboring countries during the 1967 conflict during that period, seizing land including the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan and East Jerusalem, the American Jewish perspective on Israel changed dramatically. Israel’s victory, combined with longstanding fears of a “second Holocaust”, resulted in a developing perspective in the country’s essential significance within Jewish identity, and created pride in its resilience. Discourse concerning the extraordinary nature of the outcome and the “liberation” of land gave the Zionist project a spiritual, even messianic, importance. In those heady years, considerable existing hesitation about Zionism vanished. During the seventies, Writer the commentator stated: “Everyone supports Zionism today.”
The Unity and Its Limits
The unified position left out strictly Orthodox communities – who generally maintained a Jewish state should only be ushered in through traditional interpretation of the Messiah – yet included Reform, Conservative, Modern Orthodox and the majority of non-affiliated Jews. The predominant version of the unified position, identified as liberal Zionism, was established on a belief regarding Israel as a liberal and liberal – albeit ethnocentric – nation. Many American Jews viewed the administration of local, Syrian and Egypt's territories following the war as not permanent, thinking that a resolution was forthcoming that would guarantee Jewish demographic dominance in Israel proper and neighbor recognition of Israel.
Multiple generations of Jewish Americans were thus brought up with support for Israel a core part of their identity as Jews. Israel became a central part within religious instruction. Israeli national day became a Jewish holiday. National symbols were displayed in many temples. Youth programs were permeated with national melodies and education of contemporary Hebrew, with Israelis visiting and teaching American youth Israeli culture. Travel to Israel grew and peaked via educational trips by 1999, providing no-cost visits to the nation was provided to Jewish young adults. Israel permeated almost the entirety of US Jewish life.
Shifting Landscape
Interestingly, in these decades after 1967, American Jewry grew skilled at religious pluralism. Acceptance and discussion between Jewish denominations grew.
However regarding Zionism and Israel – that’s where diversity reached its limit. Individuals might align with a conservative supporter or a liberal advocate, however endorsement of the nation as a Jewish homeland remained unquestioned, and questioning that position placed you beyond accepted boundaries – a non-conformist, as Tablet magazine termed it in an essay that year.
Yet presently, during of the devastation within Gaza, starvation, child casualties and anger over the denial of many fellow Jews who avoid admitting their responsibility, that unity has broken down. The liberal Zionist “center” {has lost|no longer
