A Collapse of a Zionist Agreement Within American Jews: What's Emerging Today.
It has been the mass murder of the events of October 7th, which deeply affected world Jewry unlike anything else since the founding of the state of Israel.
For Jews the event proved deeply traumatic. For the state of Israel, the situation represented a profound disgrace. The whole Zionist endeavor had been established on the belief that the nation would ensure against such atrocities from ever happening again.
A response appeared unavoidable. Yet the chosen course Israel pursued – the comprehensive devastation of Gaza, the killing and maiming of many thousands ordinary people – represented a decision. This selected path complicated the way numerous US Jewish community members grappled with the attack that precipitated the response, and it now complicates the community's commemoration of that date. How does one grieve and remember an atrocity affecting their nation while simultaneously devastation being inflicted upon another people attributed to their identity?
The Difficulty of Remembrance
The difficulty surrounding remembrance stems from the circumstance where little unity prevails regarding the significance of these events. Indeed, within US Jewish circles, the recent twenty-four months have experienced the disintegration of a half-century-old unity about the Zionist movement.
The origins of Zionist agreement within US Jewish communities can be traced to a 1915 essay authored by an attorney and then future Supreme Court judge Louis D. Brandeis called “Jewish Issues; How to Solve it”. However, the agreement became firmly established after the 1967 conflict during 1967. Before then, US Jewish communities housed a vulnerable but enduring parallel existence across various segments that had different opinions about the need for a Jewish nation – Zionists, non-Zionists and anti-Zionists.
Background Information
That coexistence persisted through the 1950s and 60s, within remaining elements of socialist Jewish movements, in the non-Zionist Jewish communal organization, in the anti-Zionist religious group and other organizations. Regarding Chancellor Finkelstein, the chancellor of the theological institution, pro-Israel ideology was more spiritual than political, and he prohibited performance of Hatikvah, Hatikvah, at religious school events in those years. Nor were Zionist ideology the central focus of Modern Orthodoxy prior to that war. Different Jewish identity models remained present.
But after Israel routed its neighbors in that war that year, occupying territories comprising the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, US Jewish relationship to the country underwent significant transformation. The triumphant outcome, coupled with persistent concerns about another genocide, led to an increasing conviction about the nation's vital role for Jewish communities, and created pride in its resilience. Language concerning the extraordinary aspect of the outcome and the freeing of land provided the movement a theological, potentially salvific, significance. During that enthusiastic period, a significant portion of the remaining ambivalence about Zionism dissipated. During the seventies, Commentary magazine editor Podhoretz declared: “Zionism unites us all.”
The Unity and Restrictions
The pro-Israel agreement excluded Haredi Jews – who largely believed a Jewish state should only be established through traditional interpretation of redemption – but united Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism, contemporary Orthodox and most secular Jews. The predominant version of this agreement, what became known as liberal Zionism, was based on a belief regarding Israel as a democratic and liberal – albeit ethnocentric – nation. Numerous US Jews saw the control of local, Syria's and Egypt's territories following the war as temporary, believing that an agreement was forthcoming that would guarantee a Jewish majority in pre-1967 Israel and regional acceptance of the state.
Multiple generations of US Jews were raised with Zionism a core part of their Jewish identity. The state transformed into a central part within religious instruction. Yom Ha'atzmaut evolved into a religious observance. Israeli flags adorned many temples. Summer camps were permeated with Israeli songs and learning of contemporary Hebrew, with Israeli guests instructing American teenagers Israeli customs. Travel to Israel grew and reached new heights via educational trips in 1999, when a free trip to the country became available to US Jewish youth. The nation influenced virtually all areas of Jewish American identity.
Shifting Landscape
Paradoxically, throughout these years post-1967, US Jewish communities developed expertise in religious diversity. Open-mindedness and discussion among different Jewish movements expanded.
However regarding support for Israel – that’s where pluralism ended. You could be a rightwing Zionist or a leftwing Zionist, but support for Israel as a majority-Jewish country was assumed, and criticizing that perspective positioned you outside mainstream views – a non-conformist, as one publication termed it in an essay in 2021.
Yet presently, under the weight of the devastation within Gaza, famine, dead and orphaned children and outrage about the rejection of many fellow Jews who refuse to recognize their involvement, that consensus has collapsed. The centrist pro-Israel view {has lost|no longer
