A Collapse of the Zionist Agreement Within American Jewish Community: What's Taking Shape Now.
It has been the horrific attack of October 7, 2023, an event that shook world Jewry like no other occurrence following the establishment of Israel as a nation.
Within Jewish communities the event proved profoundly disturbing. For the state of Israel, the situation represented deeply humiliating. The whole Zionist project had been established on the assumption which held that the nation could stop similar tragedies repeating.
Military action appeared unavoidable. Yet the chosen course undertaken by Israel – the widespread destruction of Gaza, the killing and maiming of many thousands ordinary people – constituted a specific policy. This selected path complicated the perspective of many US Jewish community members processed the October 7th events that set it in motion, and presently makes difficult the community's commemoration of that date. In what way can people honor and reflect on a horrific event affecting their nation while simultaneously devastation being inflicted upon other individuals attributed to their identity?
The Complexity of Grieving
The challenge in grieving lies in the reality that there is no consensus regarding the significance of these events. Indeed, for the American Jewish community, this two-year period have seen the collapse of a half-century-old agreement on Zionism itself.
The beginnings of Zionist agreement among American Jewry dates back to a 1915 essay written by a legal scholar and then future high court jurist Louis D. Brandeis called “Jewish Issues; Finding Solutions”. But the consensus truly solidified following the 1967 conflict that year. Previously, Jewish Americans contained a fragile but stable coexistence among different factions that had diverse perspectives regarding the requirement for Israel – pro-Israel advocates, neutral parties and anti-Zionists.
Background Information
Such cohabitation endured throughout the post-war decades, through surviving aspects of Jewish socialism, through the non-aligned Jewish communal organization, within the critical Jewish organization and comparable entities. For Louis Finkelstein, the chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary, Zionism was more spiritual rather than political, and he forbade the singing of Israel's anthem, Hatikvah, at religious school events in the early 1960s. Nor were Zionist ideology the main element of Modern Orthodoxy before the six-day war. Alternative Jewish perspectives coexisted.
However following Israel defeated adjacent nations in the six-day war that year, seizing land comprising Palestinian territories, Gaza, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, the American Jewish perspective on the country changed dramatically. The military success, combined with longstanding fears of a “second Holocaust”, produced an increasing conviction in the country’s vital role for Jewish communities, and generated admiration regarding its endurance. Rhetoric regarding the “miraculous” quality of the victory and the freeing of areas gave the movement a religious, even messianic, significance. During that enthusiastic period, considerable previous uncertainty regarding Zionism disappeared. In that decade, Publication editor the commentator declared: “We are all Zionists now.”
The Agreement and Its Limits
The Zionist consensus left out Haredi Jews – who typically thought Israel should only be established via conventional understanding of the Messiah – yet included Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism, contemporary Orthodox and the majority of unaffiliated individuals. The common interpretation of the unified position, identified as left-leaning Zionism, was established on the conviction in Israel as a liberal and free – albeit ethnocentric – nation. Countless Jewish Americans viewed the control of Arab, Syrian and Egypt's territories post-1967 as temporary, thinking that a solution was imminent that would maintain Jewish demographic dominance in Israel proper and regional acceptance of the nation.
Multiple generations of American Jews were thus brought up with support for Israel a core part of their identity as Jews. The nation became a key component in Jewish learning. Israel’s Independence Day turned into a celebration. National symbols decorated many temples. Summer camps were permeated with Hebrew music and the study of contemporary Hebrew, with Israelis visiting and teaching American teenagers Israeli culture. Visits to Israel expanded and peaked through Birthright programs by 1999, providing no-cost visits to Israel was provided to US Jewish youth. Israel permeated virtually all areas of Jewish American identity.
Shifting Landscape
Ironically, throughout these years following the war, Jewish Americans became adept at religious pluralism. Tolerance and communication across various Jewish groups increased.
Except when it came to Zionism and Israel – there existed pluralism ended. You could be a right-leaning advocate or a liberal advocate, but support for Israel as a Jewish homeland remained unquestioned, and questioning that position positioned you beyond accepted boundaries – an “Un-Jew”, as Tablet magazine described it in an essay recently.
Yet presently, amid of the devastation within Gaza, famine, dead and orphaned children and frustration about the rejection within Jewish communities who decline to acknowledge their involvement, that consensus has collapsed. The moderate Zionist position {has lost|no longer
