> Not against Israel (and certainly not in favor of the Arabs) - but rather against Dayan and Ben-Gurion's strategy of calculated provocations against Syria and Egypt. Dulles had actually decided in favor of providing arms to Israel by the end of late 1955. But his hand was tipped by Israel's severely destabilizing actions (most notably Operation Olive Leaves), and most decisively by Ben-Gurion's calculated decision to also conceal these plans from Washington.
I don't think this is an accurate assessment. The state department publicly condemned Britain, France, and Israel and convinced them to withdraw: "In response, the Eisenhower administration, concerned about dissociating the United States from European colonialism—especially in light of its strident condemnation of the Soviet intervention in Hungary the same week—as well as the possibility that the Soviets would intervene to assist Nasser, pressured Britain and France to accept a United Nations ceasefire on November 6. Moreover, the United States voted for U.N. resolutions publicly condemning the invasion and approving the creation of a U.N. peacekeeping force." [0]
> The other narratives that you're presenting above are similarly problematic. You aren't even using the term Zionism correctly. It isn't about the geographic origins of the Jewish people; but rather specifically about the idea of setting up a 19th century-style nation-state in their interest (and of resettling large numbers of people to a place where their ancestors had not set foot in for well over a millenium) -- by definition (and in every dictionary and encyclopedia definition you will find) an intrinsically modern concept. Nor is it "core" to Jewish people in general, only to some.
Firstly, there are many variants of Zionism. It existed since Jews lived there in antiquity, though it did not have the name. The most important modern version is the Basel Program [1]. "Zionism seeks to establish a home in Palestine for the Jewish people, secured under public law" was the official purpose. Note that Jews first sought to obtain this secured homeland by appealing to the Sultan of Ottoman Empire (which was rejected several times). As the Sultan said, "My people have won this Empire by fighting for it with their blood and have fertilised it with their blood. We will again cover it with our blood before we allow it to be wrested away from us." Additionally, many Jews lived in Israel since antiquity (Old Yishuv), many more throughout the middle east (Mizrahim, Sephardim), and many more visited Israel. But yes, Jews had been forcibly removed from the area for ages, and went about their lives as best they could elsewhere. That no more breaks their connection to the land than Native Americans being put on reservations breaks their connection to lands in America.
> It isn't about the geographic origins of the Jewish people
It explicitly is. The general need for a state was acknowledged, but the reason it was in Israel is because of the geographic origin there. Again, Jews repeatedly moved back to Israel, prior to the ideation of a modern Jewish nation-state. This is a fact, and labeling as problematic is itself problematic and anti-historical.
> Nor is it "core" to Jewish people in general, only to some.
All of our stories take place in Israel or near it. Zion, Israel, Jerusalem, are mentioned thousands of times in the Torah and Tanakh [2]. Every Jewish person (or guest) who has participated in a Passover Seder has heard the words "Next year in Jerusalem" [3] for at least the last 600 years. The origin of the Jewish people in this place is explicitly the core of the religion and core to the history of the people, including the nonreligious ones.
0. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1953-1960/suez
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Zionist_Congress#Basel_P...
2. https://ferrusca.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/th...
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Shana_Haba%27ah