A Collapse of a Zionist Agreement Among US Jews: What's Emerging Now.
It has been that horrific attack of the events of October 7th, which profoundly impacted Jewish communities worldwide like no other occurrence following the establishment of the state of Israel.
For Jews it was deeply traumatic. For Israel as a nation, it was a significant embarrassment. The whole Zionist endeavor was founded on the belief which held that the nation would prevent things like this occurring in the future.
Military action appeared unavoidable. However, the particular response that Israel implemented – the comprehensive devastation of Gaza, the deaths and injuries of tens of thousands ordinary people – constituted a specific policy. And this choice complicated how many Jewish Americans grappled with the initial assault that triggered it, and currently challenges their observance of the day. How can someone honor and reflect on a horrific event targeting their community while simultaneously an atrocity done to a different population attributed to their identity?
The Complexity of Remembrance
The complexity of mourning lies in the reality that little unity prevails regarding the implications of these developments. In fact, among Jewish Americans, the recent twenty-four months have experienced the breakdown of a decades-long agreement about the Zionist movement.
The beginnings of Zionist agreement across American Jewish populations dates back to a 1915 essay authored by an attorney subsequently appointed supreme court justice Louis D. Brandeis titled “The Jewish Problem; Addressing the Challenge”. However, the agreement truly solidified following the six-day war in 1967. Previously, American Jewry contained a delicate yet functioning parallel existence among different factions which maintained different opinions about the necessity for a Jewish nation – pro-Israel advocates, neutral parties and anti-Zionists.
Background Information
That coexistence persisted through the mid-twentieth century, through surviving aspects of leftist Jewish organizations, through the non-aligned US Jewish group, in the anti-Zionist Jewish organization and comparable entities. In the view of Louis Finkelstein, the head of the theological institution, the Zionist movement was more spiritual rather than political, and he did not permit the singing of the Israeli national anthem, Hatikvah, during seminary ceremonies in those years. Nor were support for Israel the central focus for contemporary Orthodox communities before the six-day war. Different Jewish identity models coexisted.
But after Israel routed neighboring countries in the six-day war in 1967, occupying territories such as the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and Jerusalem's eastern sector, US Jewish connection with the nation evolved considerably. The military success, combined with persistent concerns regarding repeated persecution, produced a growing belief about the nation's essential significance within Jewish identity, and generated admiration in its resilience. Rhetoric regarding the extraordinary nature of the outcome and the reclaiming of territory provided the Zionist project a spiritual, almost redemptive, meaning. In that triumphant era, a significant portion of the remaining ambivalence about Zionism dissipated. In the early 1970s, Writer the commentator declared: “We are all Zionists now.”
The Unity and Restrictions
The unified position did not include strictly Orthodox communities – who typically thought a nation should only be established through traditional interpretation of the messiah – yet included Reform, Conservative Judaism, contemporary Orthodox and nearly all secular Jews. The common interpretation of the consensus, later termed liberal Zionism, was established on the idea about the nation as a liberal and democratic – albeit ethnocentric – nation. Countless Jewish Americans saw the administration of local, Syria's and Egyptian lands post-1967 as temporary, thinking that an agreement was forthcoming that would maintain Jewish demographic dominance in Israel proper and regional acceptance of the nation.
Two generations of US Jews were raised with pro-Israel ideology a core part of their Jewish identity. The nation became a central part of Jewish education. Israeli national day evolved into a religious observance. Israeli flags decorated most synagogues. Youth programs were permeated with Israeli songs and education of the language, with Israeli guests instructing American youth national traditions. Travel to Israel grew and reached new heights through Birthright programs by 1999, when a free trip to Israel was provided to young American Jews. The nation influenced almost the entirety of the American Jewish experience.
Evolving Situation
Paradoxically, in these decades after 1967, Jewish Americans grew skilled in religious diversity. Acceptance and communication across various Jewish groups expanded.
However regarding support for Israel – that’s where pluralism reached its limit. One could identify as a conservative supporter or a progressive supporter, but support for Israel as a Jewish state remained unquestioned, and criticizing that perspective placed you outside mainstream views – a non-conformist, as Tablet magazine termed it in an essay recently.
However currently, during of the devastation of Gaza, famine, young victims and outrage regarding the refusal by numerous Jewish individuals who avoid admitting their complicity, that agreement has disintegrated. The centrist pro-Israel view {has lost|no longer
