A Breakdown of a Pro-Israel Agreement Within American Jewish Community: What Is Taking Shape Today.

It has been that horrific attack of the events of October 7th, which deeply affected global Jewish populations unlike anything else since the founding of Israel as a nation.

Within Jewish communities the event proved deeply traumatic. For Israel as a nation, the situation represented deeply humiliating. The entire Zionist movement was founded on the belief which held that the nation could stop such atrocities from ever happening again.

Some form of retaliation was inevitable. But the response undertaken by Israel – the widespread destruction of the Gaza Strip, the killing and maiming of tens of thousands of civilians – constituted a specific policy. And this choice complicated how many American Jews processed the initial assault that triggered it, and it now complicates the community's remembrance of the day. How does one mourn and commemorate a horrific event targeting their community in the midst of a catastrophe experienced by a different population in your name?

The Difficulty of Remembrance

The challenge of mourning lies in the fact that little unity prevails as to what any of this means. Actually, within US Jewish circles, the last two years have witnessed the collapse of a half-century-old consensus about the Zionist movement.

The beginnings of pro-Israel unity among American Jewry dates back to writings from 1915 written by a legal scholar subsequently appointed supreme court justice Justice Brandeis named “The Jewish Question; Finding Solutions”. Yet the unity truly solidified after the 1967 conflict that year. Before then, US Jewish communities contained a vulnerable but enduring parallel existence across various segments holding different opinions concerning the necessity for Israel – pro-Israel advocates, non-Zionists and opponents.

Previous Developments

That coexistence persisted during the mid-twentieth century, in remnants of leftist Jewish organizations, through the non-aligned American Jewish Committee, in the anti-Zionist American Council for Judaism and other organizations. In the view of Louis Finkelstein, the chancellor of the theological institution, the Zionist movement had greater religious significance rather than political, and he did not permit performance of Israel's anthem, the Israeli national anthem, during seminary ceremonies during that period. Additionally, Zionism and pro-Israelism the centerpiece of Modern Orthodoxy prior to the 1967 conflict. Alternative Jewish perspectives existed alongside.

Yet after Israel overcame neighboring countries during the 1967 conflict in 1967, seizing land comprising Palestinian territories, Gaza Strip, the Golan and Jerusalem's eastern sector, the American Jewish perspective on Israel changed dramatically. The military success, combined with longstanding fears about another genocide, led to an increasing conviction in the country’s essential significance to the Jewish people, and a source of pride in its resilience. Rhetoric concerning the “miraculous” nature of the outcome and the reclaiming of territory gave the Zionist project a religious, almost redemptive, meaning. During that enthusiastic period, much of the remaining ambivalence toward Israel dissipated. In that decade, Writer Podhoretz stated: “Everyone supports Zionism today.”

The Agreement and Its Boundaries

The Zionist consensus did not include strictly Orthodox communities – who typically thought Israel should only be ushered in through traditional interpretation of the messiah – however joined Reform, Conservative Judaism, Modern Orthodox and nearly all non-affiliated Jews. The common interpretation of this agreement, later termed progressive Zionism, was established on the conviction in Israel as a democratic and democratic – while majority-Jewish – country. Countless Jewish Americans considered the occupation of Arab, Syrian and Egyptian lands post-1967 as provisional, thinking that an agreement was imminent that would ensure a Jewish majority within Israel's original borders and neighbor recognition of Israel.

Several cohorts of Jewish Americans were raised with pro-Israel ideology an essential component of their religious identity. The nation became an important element within religious instruction. Yom Ha'atzmaut became a Jewish holiday. Blue and white banners adorned most synagogues. Seasonal activities became infused with national melodies and the study of the language, with Israelis visiting educating American youth Israeli culture. Travel to Israel increased and reached new heights through Birthright programs by 1999, offering complimentary travel to the nation became available to US Jewish youth. The nation influenced virtually all areas of the American Jewish experience.

Shifting Landscape

Ironically, throughout these years after 1967, Jewish Americans developed expertise in religious diversity. Acceptance and communication across various Jewish groups grew.

However regarding the Israeli situation – that represented pluralism reached its limit. Individuals might align with a right-leaning advocate or a leftwing Zionist, however endorsement of the nation as a Jewish state was assumed, and questioning that perspective positioned you beyond accepted boundaries – outside the community, as Tablet magazine termed it in an essay that year.

But now, during of the ruin of Gaza, starvation, dead and orphaned children and outrage about the rejection within Jewish communities who avoid admitting their complicity, that agreement has collapsed. The liberal Zionist “center” {has lost|no longer