It began to really pick up steam after World War Two, with the survival of the Jews, and the desire for their own country, so they could feel safe and united as a people. A nationalist movement meant for Jewish empowerment, Troen describes one of Zionism’s core focuses as the return to “Eretz Israel” (101). Conversely, Troen mentions that until 1948 the Zionist movement used “’Palestine’ and ‘Eretz Israel’ interchangeable in the titles of their organization and in the letterheads of official stationery” (102). He further alludes to the growing ambitions of Israel as “’Palestine’ and ‘Eretz Israel’ were displaced when the Declaration of Independence referred to ‘the State of Israel’” (Troen 102). This signified a huge shift in the thinking and views of the Zionist movement. No longer was the possibility of a bi-nationalist state up for auction, but only the singular nation of Israel. Troen further entertains the notion that the boom of Zionism in the early 1900’s along with the “Balfour Declaration of 1917” lead to the creation of Israel (105). Blanche arrives at the same conclusion as he declares, “that Lord Balfour, formally recognized the Zionist organization’s plan for ‘a National Home for the Jews’” (8). Since then, many people have expressed outrage at some of the Zionist sentiments and justifications. Regarding the matter, Ilan Pappe said, “Worst of all was the Zionist and later Israeli abuse of the Holocaust memory to justify the dispossession of Palestine that disconcerted and outraged me” (qtd in Docker 2). Language like this enflames the situation, and creates even more defensive reactions from Israel. Pappe isn’t the only one to express these kind of sentiments however. Gilad Atzmon, “an Israeli now resident in London” had this to say about Israel, “Many of us including me tend to equate Israel to Nazi Germany. Rather often I
It began to really pick up steam after World War Two, with the survival of the Jews, and the desire for their own country, so they could feel safe and united as a people. A nationalist movement meant for Jewish empowerment, Troen describes one of Zionism’s core focuses as the return to “Eretz Israel” (101). Conversely, Troen mentions that until 1948 the Zionist movement used “’Palestine’ and ‘Eretz Israel’ interchangeable in the titles of their organization and in the letterheads of official stationery” (102). He further alludes to the growing ambitions of Israel as “’Palestine’ and ‘Eretz Israel’ were displaced when the Declaration of Independence referred to ‘the State of Israel’” (Troen 102). This signified a huge shift in the thinking and views of the Zionist movement. No longer was the possibility of a bi-nationalist state up for auction, but only the singular nation of Israel. Troen further entertains the notion that the boom of Zionism in the early 1900’s along with the “Balfour Declaration of 1917” lead to the creation of Israel (105). Blanche arrives at the same conclusion as he declares, “that Lord Balfour, formally recognized the Zionist organization’s plan for ‘a National Home for the Jews’” (8). Since then, many people have expressed outrage at some of the Zionist sentiments and justifications. Regarding the matter, Ilan Pappe said, “Worst of all was the Zionist and later Israeli abuse of the Holocaust memory to justify the dispossession of Palestine that disconcerted and outraged me” (qtd in Docker 2). Language like this enflames the situation, and creates even more defensive reactions from Israel. Pappe isn’t the only one to express these kind of sentiments however. Gilad Atzmon, “an Israeli now resident in London” had this to say about Israel, “Many of us including me tend to equate Israel to Nazi Germany. Rather often I