🔗 Share this article

Two years have passed since that horrific attack of 7 October 2023, which profoundly impacted world Jewry unlike anything else following the founding of the Jewish state.

For Jews the event proved deeply traumatic. For the state of Israel, the situation represented deeply humiliating. The whole Zionist movement rested on the assumption that the nation would ensure against 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 selected path complicated the way numerous US Jewish community members grappled with the attack that triggered it, and presently makes difficult their remembrance of that date. In what way can people grieve and remember an atrocity affecting their nation during a catastrophe being inflicted upon other individuals attributed to their identity?

The Challenge of Remembrance

The complexity surrounding remembrance stems from the circumstance where there is no consensus regarding what any of this means. Actually, among Jewish Americans, the recent twenty-four months have seen the disintegration of a fifty-year consensus on Zionism itself.

The origins of a Zionist consensus within US Jewish communities can be traced to an early twentieth-century publication written by a legal scholar who would later become high court jurist Louis Brandeis called “The Jewish Problem; Addressing the Challenge”. Yet the unity really takes hold following the Six-Day War that year. Before then, US Jewish communities contained a fragile but stable cohabitation among different factions that had a range of views regarding the need for a Jewish nation – pro-Israel advocates, neutral parties and opponents.

Background Information

This parallel existence continued through the mid-twentieth century, within remaining elements of leftist Jewish organizations, through the non-aligned Jewish communal organization, within the critical American Council for Judaism and similar institutions. Regarding Chancellor Finkelstein, the chancellor at JTS, pro-Israel ideology had greater religious significance rather than political, and he prohibited singing Israel's anthem, Hatikvah, at religious school events during that period. Additionally, Zionist ideology the main element for contemporary Orthodox communities before the six-day war. Different Jewish identity models remained present.

But after Israel overcame adjacent nations during the 1967 conflict that year, occupying territories including the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and Jerusalem's eastern sector, the American Jewish relationship to the country evolved considerably. The triumphant outcome, coupled with longstanding fears of a “second Holocaust”, led to a growing belief about the nation's critical importance to the Jewish people, and created pride regarding its endurance. Language regarding the remarkable quality of the outcome and the reclaiming of territory gave the movement a religious, potentially salvific, meaning. During that enthusiastic period, much of previous uncertainty toward Israel disappeared. During the seventies, Writer the commentator declared: “Everyone supports Zionism today.”

The Unity and Its Limits

The Zionist consensus left out the ultra-Orthodox – who largely believed a nation should only emerge through traditional interpretation of redemption – however joined Reform Judaism, Conservative, Modern Orthodox and nearly all unaffiliated individuals. The most popular form of the consensus, identified as liberal Zionism, was based on the idea about the nation as a progressive and liberal – while majority-Jewish – state. Many American Jews viewed the occupation of local, Syria's and Egyptian lands after 1967 as provisional, believing that a solution was imminent that would guarantee a Jewish majority in Israel proper and neighbor recognition of the nation.

Two generations of Jewish Americans were thus brought up with pro-Israel ideology a core part of their religious identity. Israel became an important element in Jewish learning. Israeli national day turned into a celebration. Blue and white banners were displayed in most synagogues. Summer camps became infused with national melodies and education of the language, with visitors from Israel educating US young people national traditions. Visits to Israel grew and peaked with Birthright Israel during that year, providing no-cost visits to Israel was offered to US Jewish youth. The state affected nearly every aspect of US Jewish life.

Evolving Situation

Ironically, in these decades post-1967, US Jewish communities grew skilled regarding denominational coexistence. Tolerance and communication across various Jewish groups grew.

However regarding support for Israel – there existed diversity ended. One could identify as a rightwing Zionist or a liberal advocate, however endorsement of the nation as a majority-Jewish country was a given, and questioning that perspective placed you outside mainstream views – a non-conformist, as a Jewish periodical termed it in writing recently.

Yet presently, amid of the ruin of Gaza, famine, young victims and anger about the rejection of many fellow Jews who decline to acknowledge their responsibility, that consensus has disintegrated. The liberal Zionist “center” {has lost|no longer