The Breakdown of the Zionist Agreement Within American Jews: What's Taking Shape Now.
It has been the deadly assault of 7 October 2023, an event that profoundly impacted Jewish communities worldwide like no other occurrence following the founding of the Jewish state.
Among Jewish people it was profoundly disturbing. For the Israeli government, the situation represented a profound disgrace. The whole Zionist endeavor was founded on the presumption which held that the nation would prevent similar tragedies occurring in the future.
Military action appeared unavoidable. But the response undertaken by Israel – the comprehensive devastation of the Gaza Strip, the deaths and injuries of many thousands of civilians – was a choice. This selected path made more difficult the way numerous American Jews grappled with the attack that triggered it, and currently challenges the community's observance of that date. How does one honor and reflect on a tragedy targeting their community during an atrocity experienced by another people in your name?
The Challenge of Remembrance
The difficulty surrounding remembrance stems from the circumstance where no agreement exists about the implications of these developments. Indeed, among Jewish Americans, this two-year period have experienced the breakdown of a fifty-year consensus about the Zionist movement.
The early development of a Zionist consensus within US Jewish communities dates back to writings from 1915 written by a legal scholar subsequently appointed Supreme Court judge Justice Brandeis called “The Jewish Problem; Finding Solutions”. But the consensus truly solidified following the 1967 conflict during 1967. Before then, Jewish Americans contained a fragile but stable coexistence between groups that had different opinions about the requirement for a Jewish nation – Zionists, non-Zionists and opponents.
Background Information
That coexistence continued throughout the post-war decades, in remnants of socialist Jewish movements, in the non-Zionist US Jewish group, within the critical Jewish organization and comparable entities. Regarding Chancellor Finkelstein, the leader of the Jewish Theological Seminary, Zionism had greater religious significance than political, and he did not permit the singing of the Israeli national anthem, the national song, at religious school events in the early 1960s. Nor were Zionism and pro-Israelism the centerpiece for contemporary Orthodox communities until after the 1967 conflict. Jewish identitarian alternatives remained present.
Yet after Israel overcame neighboring countries in that war that year, seizing land such as the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and Jerusalem's eastern sector, the American Jewish perspective on Israel underwent significant transformation. The triumphant outcome, along with longstanding fears regarding repeated persecution, led to a developing perspective in the country’s critical importance for Jewish communities, and generated admiration regarding its endurance. Rhetoric about the remarkable nature of the outcome and the reclaiming of territory provided the Zionist project a theological, almost redemptive, importance. In that triumphant era, a significant portion of existing hesitation toward Israel dissipated. In the early 1970s, Publication editor Podhoretz declared: “Everyone supports Zionism today.”
The Consensus and Its Boundaries
The Zionist consensus excluded the ultra-Orthodox – who generally maintained a Jewish state should only emerge through traditional interpretation of the messiah – but united Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism, Modern Orthodox and nearly all non-affiliated Jews. The predominant version of this agreement, later termed left-leaning Zionism, was established on the idea in Israel as a progressive and free – albeit ethnocentric – nation. Many American Jews saw the administration of Palestinian, Syria's and Egyptian lands following the war as not permanent, thinking that a resolution was imminent that would ensure a Jewish majority in pre-1967 Israel and neighbor recognition of the state.
Multiple generations of US Jews were thus brought up with support for Israel an essential component of their identity as Jews. Israel became a key component of Jewish education. Israeli national day turned into a celebration. National symbols were displayed in many temples. Youth programs were permeated with Hebrew music and education of contemporary Hebrew, with Israelis visiting and teaching US young people Israeli customs. Trips to the nation grew and reached new heights through Birthright programs in 1999, when a free trip to Israel was provided to Jewish young adults. The nation influenced nearly every aspect of Jewish American identity.
Shifting Landscape
Interestingly, throughout these years following the war, American Jewry grew skilled in religious diversity. Open-mindedness and communication between Jewish denominations expanded.
Except when it came to the Israeli situation – that’s where pluralism reached its limit. You could be a conservative supporter or a progressive supporter, however endorsement of the nation as a Jewish homeland was a given, and questioning that narrative positioned you beyond accepted boundaries – an “Un-Jew”, as Tablet magazine labeled it in writing recently.
But now, during of the ruin of Gaza, starvation, dead and orphaned children and anger regarding the refusal of many fellow Jews who avoid admitting their responsibility, that consensus has disintegrated. The moderate Zionist position {has lost|no longer
