I just want to make a few points about this article, as it makes a lot of claims, some of which I think are wrong, and leaving falsehoods unchallenged is wrong.

Firstly, by your definition of "Zionism", that Israel has a right to exist on 1967 borders, then you agree with Chomsky and Finkelstein and you're arguing against a straw man. I also happen to agree that it should be on 1967 borders. It's Israel who is unilaterally occupying the West Bank and building the wall which steals a large percentage of the land. So it is Israel who is anti-Zionist by your own definition, and Finkelstein and Chomsky who are Zionists.

2. And I don't know where you think someone said that Zionism wasn't a multifaceted movement. Chomsky was in Zionist groups as a young man, one's that advocated a binational state for Jews and Arabs. What we see now is sometimes called neo-Zionism which is a racist, fundamentalist religious ideology (believed by Sharon amongst others) that claims Eretz Israel is rightly for the Jews — that includes the West Bank.

3. And you can't criticize Chomsky for the format of What They Mean, I formulated it and Chomsky's answer is pretty much stand-alone, you don't need Barak's quote, but I did it to give some context.

4. Your definition of occupation is taken from dictionary.com, you should look at international law. Israel controls all of Gaza's borders, it controls movement in and out, it controls its coast, it controls its energy supply, it controls its airspace, it controls its water supply… Gaza has always been under occupation, you need to get a better definition of occupation.

5. Ha'aretz is the most influential paper for the "intellectual classes", readership numbers are irrelevant. In the UK the Sun sells the most, but its influence on intellectual classes is close to zero.

6. Secret plans hatched by the government show its intentions. This wasn't a defensive plan hatched, it was an offensive. Even if it wasn't done, it wasn't outside the moral parameters of its authors, which is instructive.

7. No-one has used the words in many of your quotes about "evil Zionist conspiracy" so it's hard to argue with them because you made them up. Having a analytical framework to look at state action is not a bad way to look at the world; Chomsky and Finkelstein distrust what the Israeli government and its propaganda organs say because 99% of the time they are lying and putting a false image out to the world. That's why their analysis is much more in touch with reality than 90% of the US media.