Just as bad as the “Zionism” it rejects, a lot of genuinely radical anti-Zionist writing will often seem not to allow anything in that might disturb its own tight narrative coherence. The logics are unfalsifiable, i.e. without criteria or evidence that could possibly count as evidence against the author’s point of view, evidence that might require one to change or to alter his or her point of view, or at least to concede a point. It’s on this unfalsifiable basis that “radical anti-Zionism” wants to force, to make necessary and urgent a determinate moral-political decision. The models of right and wrong, justice and injustice are unyielding and binary. There’s no way to argue with agitprop writing.
There’s no way to force a decision between Zionism and anti-Zionism. The historical circumstances and varying perspectives that would determine such a decision evolve on the basis of their own internal logics, oscillating between static standstill and sudden rupture. As for myself, I would like to believe that my intellectual, personal, and political commitments to a (disappearing?) democratic Israel are corrigible. Wanting to resist the friend/enemy distinction that bogs down discourse about Israel and Zionism from either end of the political spectrum, I can point to evidence that falsifies those commitments everyday.