1. In your essay, you say that "Sociologist Yehouda Shenhav argues that the return to Zion meant little to them.... The move to Palestine (before 1948) was seen not as a move to Zion, but as a move from one area of the Arab world to another, and thus was not considered to have any ramifications in terms of sacred geography." What exactly changed the mindset of Zionists today who are focused on the religious aspects of Zionism? And, by extension, the support for Zionism by fundamentalist Christians who claim that their support is founded upon religious purposes?
2. Your essay makes it clear that Jews, Arabs, and Arab Jews coexisted peacefully as indigenous peoples, at least for a period of time. Why was Zionism, as opposed to Jewish migration into the region, seen as a necessary move? Or was it not necessary?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.