This paragraph is exactly the problem.. Israel today is not a "Jewish-only" state, since it has non-Jewish citizens who have full voting rights, even if many other rights are not fully-equal with Jewish citizens. There are unquestionably Jews in Israel who would call themselves Zionist but not only accept full rights for non-Jewish fellow citizens but would support restoration of rights to Palestinians driven out in 1948. The debate among that broad center-left (at least before the present conflict) was how far that restoration might be willing to go with an eye on keeping a Jewish MAJORITY - notably not Jewish only - to maintain the nationalist character of the state.
There may be no way to maintain a Jewish majority state while accomodating justice for the Palestinians, but the very statement that Zionism equals complete eradication of Arabs is exactly the kind of blanket condemnation of Jewish members of the country that makes the "zionist" rhetoric suspicious.
Since what kind of state should be in place is exactly what is at issue in the conflict, from one side-by-side with a Palestinian state with an Israeli state with a liberal right of return to all displaced Palestinians on the far left of Jewish Israeli beliefs to a far right Zionism looking to drive all Palestinians out of Israel and the West Bank, it is bizarre to say the Israeli state - as if that is fixed - is equivalent to some monolithic Zionism.
Of course, one thing a blanket condemnation of "Zionism" does is avoid opponents actually articulating what THEIR goals are. Since the anti-Zionists range from those advocating a two-state solution to those arguing for a non-ethnic state governing the whole region to those advocating the driving of all Jews out of the region.
In that sense, the rhetoric of Zionism fails for its own vagueness as a political program.
-- Nathan Newman