The Breakdown of the Zionist Agreement Among American Jews: What Is Taking Shape Now.
Two years have passed since that horrific attack of 7 October 2023, which deeply affected global Jewish populations like no other occurrence since the creation of the state of Israel.
For Jews it was deeply traumatic. For Israel as a nation, the situation represented a significant embarrassment. The entire Zionist movement was founded on the presumption which held that the nation could stop similar tragedies repeating.
A response seemed necessary. But the response undertaken by Israel – the comprehensive devastation of the Gaza Strip, the casualties of tens of thousands of civilians – represented a decision. And this choice created complexity in the perspective of many American Jews processed the attack that triggered it, and presently makes difficult their observance of that date. In what way can people honor and reflect on an atrocity against your people during an atrocity done to other individuals in your name?
The Difficulty of Remembrance
The difficulty in grieving lies in the reality that there is no consensus regarding what any of this means. In fact, within US Jewish circles, the recent twenty-four months have witnessed the breakdown of a half-century-old consensus about the Zionist movement.
The origins of pro-Israel unity among American Jewry extends as far back as writings from 1915 written by a legal scholar subsequently appointed Supreme Court judge Justice Brandeis named “Jewish Issues; Finding Solutions”. Yet the unity became firmly established following the 1967 conflict that year. Earlier, American Jewry maintained a vulnerable but enduring cohabitation among different factions that had different opinions concerning the requirement for Israel – Zionists, neutral parties and anti-Zionists.
Background Information
This parallel existence continued throughout the 1950s and 60s, through surviving aspects of leftist Jewish organizations, in the non-Zionist Jewish communal organization, within the critical religious group and comparable entities. For Louis Finkelstein, the chancellor at JTS, the Zionist movement had greater religious significance rather than political, and he prohibited performance of the Israeli national anthem, the Israeli national anthem, at religious school events in the early 1960s. Additionally, Zionism and pro-Israelism the central focus for contemporary Orthodox communities prior to that war. Jewish identitarian alternatives existed alongside.
However following Israel overcame its neighbors during the 1967 conflict that year, occupying territories including Palestinian territories, Gaza, the Golan and Jerusalem's eastern sector, US Jewish connection with the country evolved considerably. The military success, combined with enduring anxieties of a “second Holocaust”, led to a growing belief in the country’s vital role within Jewish identity, and a source of pride regarding its endurance. Discourse regarding the extraordinary quality of the victory and the reclaiming of areas gave the movement a religious, potentially salvific, importance. In those heady years, considerable previous uncertainty toward Israel disappeared. In that decade, Commentary magazine editor the commentator stated: “Everyone supports Zionism today.”
The Agreement and Its Limits
The Zionist consensus left out the ultra-Orthodox – who typically thought Israel should only be ushered in via conventional understanding of the Messiah – but united Reform, Conservative Judaism, Modern Orthodox and the majority of unaffiliated individuals. The predominant version of the consensus, what became known as progressive Zionism, was founded on the idea regarding Israel as a liberal and democratic – while majority-Jewish – state. Countless Jewish Americans considered the control of local, Syria's and Egyptian lands after 1967 as not permanent, believing that a resolution would soon emerge that would guarantee a Jewish majority within Israel's original borders and neighbor recognition of the state.
Two generations of American Jews were raised with Zionism a fundamental aspect of their Jewish identity. Israel became an important element within religious instruction. Yom Ha'atzmaut turned into a celebration. Israeli flags decorated religious institutions. Youth programs became infused with Israeli songs and education of contemporary Hebrew, with visitors from Israel and teaching American teenagers Israeli culture. Trips to the nation increased and achieved record numbers with Birthright Israel in 1999, providing no-cost visits to Israel was offered to US Jewish youth. The state affected virtually all areas of Jewish American identity.
Changing Dynamics
Paradoxically, during this period following the war, US Jewish communities became adept in religious diversity. Acceptance and dialogue between Jewish denominations expanded.
Except when it came to Zionism and Israel – that’s where tolerance reached its limit. One could identify as a rightwing Zionist or a liberal advocate, but support for Israel as a Jewish homeland remained unquestioned, and criticizing that position categorized you beyond accepted boundaries – outside the community, as Tablet magazine labeled it in a piece recently.
Yet presently, under the weight of the destruction within Gaza, food shortages, dead and orphaned children and frustration about the rejection by numerous Jewish individuals who avoid admitting their responsibility, that consensus has broken down. The moderate Zionist position {has lost|no longer
