This question has long been a darling of academic and populist debates, inspiring numerous discussions for many years. The question's popularity is understandable, seeing as it touches on whether society is permitted to hate or bash people who "just happen" to be Jews. Of course, there is also the issue of censorship. In any case, the definitive response to this question is actually quite straightforward.
Many of these debates typically go off on tangents, discussing anything revolving around the Israel-Palestine issue. These tangents often reveal real intentions and viewpoints behind the arguments and are therefore not really tangents after all. But this question remains open for society at large and for people sitting at home with a mysterious, righteous, burning desire to criticize Israel even though Palestine has no effect on their lives and reports of massacres in other regions of the world are shrugged aside.
On one side of this debate, the view is that Zionism is only an ideology or political view, and that not only is it entirely appropriate to criticize such an idea, but like any idea or government, it is much healthier to subject it to scrutiny in order to counter any dogmatic excesses. The attempt to classify criticism as antisemitism is therefore seen as authoritarian bullying and mere quashing of dissenting opinions using false accusations and claims of victim-hood. This view argues that it is good to criticize some Jews, as long as they are not criticized for being Jews.
This viewpoint also points towards Jewish anti-Zionists as proof that anti-Zionism is acceptable and has nothing to do with Zionists being Jews. All of these are perfectly logical and winning arguments when taken at face value and out of context.
On the other side of the debate, the view is that anti-Zionism is, most of the time, a false front and excuse for nefarious intentions and antisemitism. Words and actions of so-called anti-Zionists present a different reality than the one they are claiming, one where centuries-old, ceaseless antisemitism has simply put on a new disguise. The claim that they are only criticizing an idea, not all Jews, does not hold water, as discussed in depth in a previous article. In other words, this claimed 'theory' of criticizing Jews for their Zionism and not their Jewishness does not stand up to their actual 'practice' and behavior.
Both views are partially correct. The problem is that the question is the wrong question since it focuses on an ambiguous aspect of the problem, an aspect that truly has more than one viewpoint. It transforms a charged reality into a context-free academic debate. This is why these debates generally don't change people's minds. The question behind the question is whether the people wielding this criticism have antisemitic goals, which would also mean that their criticism is most probably distorted. In order to answer this, better questions must be asked.
The real questions should be: 1. How does the anti-Zionist define Zionism, and 2. what is their desired outcome and solution for dealing with the problem? Once these questions are answered, the debate evaporates.
Consider the following real-world, common answers to these questions. The answers speak for themselves:
An Orthodox Jewish anti-Zionist would say: Zionism is wrong due to religious concerns (the religious issues with Zionism were covered in a previous article). Zionism, for this person, is defined as either distorted religiosity or anti-religion depending on the Zionist. The hoped-for outcome is one where Israel drops its religiously harmful views but still does everything it can to protect Jews. Now that Jews are dependent on Israel for survival, this means upholding and supporting Israel and its Jewish character and government regardless of its Zionist views. If possible, the Zionist government should be replaced by a non-Zionist one, as long as it is a Jewish one that also protects Jews. You see, this definition of Zionism automatically defines the solution which has absolutely nothing in common with pro-Palestinian anti-Zionism.
A more radical Orthodox Jewish anti-Zionist from the Satmar sect would say: The religious problems with Zionism are so extreme that personally, one should not live in Israel nor do anything that supports the Israeli government and the IDF. At the same time, one should not do anything that places a single Jew at risk, including Jews that live in Israel. This is not a contradiction. Serving in the IDF is one thing, protecting Jews is another. As to how this resolves in practice, you would have to ask them. But religious Jews can pray for Jewish soldiers as individuals, and still stand against the IDF as an organization; there is no contradiction. Either way, the criticism is once again based on religious grounds and wants nothing to do with harming Jews.
Some may counter argue that since the Orthodox view Zionists as wicked, and some even talk of the State of Israel having no religious right to exist, this is proof that it is acceptable for Israel to be dismantled even according to some Jews.
A second subtler argument goes as follows: There is one fundamental ideological difference between Judaism and Zionism which was not mentioned in the aforementioned article: According to Orthodox Jews, Zionists re-appropriated Jewish identity, shifting it from a spiritual one to one tied to the State of Israel, which is defined as a 'Jewish State' representing all Jews. As a result, according to Zionists, 'Jew' has become synonymous with Israeli nationality or Zionism. It is no wonder, therefore, that anti-Zionism is equated with anti-Judaism. In contrast, Orthodox Jews separate Jewish identity from Zionism, and therefore anti-Zionism is not antisemitism.
These two subtler arguments overlook the critical issue, however: That all religious Orthodox Jews would never do anything that put other Jews in danger, including upholding the Zionist Jewish state if necessary. And it is necessary, as shall be demonstrated. In other words, just because some Jews think establishing the state was wrong in the past, that doesn't mean that destroying it in the present is correct. Even according to these anti-Zionists, anyone that desires to dismantle Israel can still be, and is, an antisemite. It is a simple question of survival. This demonstrates the critical difference between healthy criticism, and criticism that has genocide in mind.
So far we have dealt with anti-Zionist Jews. Compare these with anti-Israel protesters or Palestinians. Ask them these questions and you will most likely get a variation of one of the following two responses:
Some protesters and most Palestinians not only call Zionism evil, but blatantly call for the destruction of Israel and all Jewish people in the area to be expelled forcefully (this is the best case scenario). Note that a mass expulsion of this kind would naturally involve many deaths as well: Some deaths will be caused by pogroms before the expulsions take place, some during expulsions, or due to some Jews refusing to leave, and many other deaths because there will be 7 million homeless Jews. All this means a lot of death, but, in any case, we are talking about a repeat of Judenfrei at best. Apart from the fact that this plan borders on genocide, and apart from the ethnic cleansing on a massive scale, the fact that this view doesn't actually differentiate between Jews that are and aren't Zionists says all that needs to be said in this context.
Note that the question of whether Zionism is racism and whether it holds evil ideas was dealt with in a previous post. Regardless, these kinds of people don't really care about all this, since they simply hate Jews, to put it mildly.
A more socially aware pro-Palestinian protester will similarly claim that Zionism is racist or supremacist, but for a solution, will declare that they don't seek to expel Jews from the area, merely to establish a "free democratic government" for Arabs and Jews alike. In other words, they claim to be fighting for a variation of the one-state solution (ignoring the fact that there is already a free democratic government for both Jews and Arabs and it is called Israel).
Some even have the gall to re-appropriate and re-define the slogan "from the river to the sea Palestine will be free", as if it calls for a one-state solution, despite the fact that, historically, this was used by terrorists before Israel occupied any land, and despite the fact that the slogan makes no mention of Israel. It doesn't say "from the river to the sea everyone will be free".
Note that I am only talking about responses to the two questions that I posed. Pro-Palestinian protesters have been notoriously evasive when it comes to questions such as these. We could discuss their actual demands, and how boycotts of various kinds do not differentiate between Zionists and non-Zionists, or how a ceasefire or an arms embargo would allow Hamas to kill more Jews, all of which are demands that do not discriminate between Zionists and non-Zionists. However, this would lead to further debate about the validity of their criticisms and what these demands actually require. We could discuss how they demand no policing, as if protests are above the law. There is also the demand for the right of Palestinians to "resist", as stated in this guide to protests by the Columbia protesters. Evidently the right to resist means support for terrorism, including Hamas barbarity against civilians, as is made clear by their banners to resist 'by any means necessary'. But they could slip away from such arguments by ad-hoc definitions of what resistance entails. We could talk about blatant antisemitic chants such as 'f*** the Jews', repeated abuse of Jewish students just for wearing a head covering, and so on, except they could claim that those were exceptions. What they cannot evade is the answer to these two questions which instantly shine a spotlight on their intentions.
For evidence regarding Palestinians themselves and their plans to expel all Jews and their rejection of both two-state and one-state solutions (75% of them), see this article. In case you still think this is a far-right and racist opinion, and in order to hammer this view home, here are four videos of street interviews by the Ask Project where 99% of Palestinians very explicitly declare their desires to expel every single Jew from the region: One, two, three, four.
As far as protesters are concerned, they generally don't like to answer such questions for obvious reasons, but in debates, when cornered, they always answer with one of these two responses. A perfect example is this debate with Ben Shapiro where he corners three students, and all three admit to wanting the complete dismantling of Israel to be replaced by Palestine, though one of them manages to interject that she wants it replaced by a one-state democratic solution.
A one-state solution for everyone in the region means that there will be an instant majority of Arabs, most of whom hate Jews with barbaric passion that we have seen very clearly for 100 years. This will result in a second Holocaust. Just imagine October 7th multiplied by 10,000. If that's what they did with only 3000 people and limited weapons and access, imagine what they would do when they own the government, the army, and have 7+ million Palestinians roaming freely in the region. It is the equivalent of bleeding-heart protesters bemoaning the state of prisons and wanting to free all serial killers out into the street, except, in this case, we are dealing with a million serial killers. At best, we are talking about the nightmare scenario described above of expelling 7 million Jews combined with mass deaths, and this is proven not only by their actions, but by the current words of average Palestinians in the streets, as was made extremely clear in the above videos.
So now we have two options to consider regarding this species of protester: Either this one-state solution advocate is ignorant of this reality and lacks imagination, and is therefore a very dangerous idiot. Or, they know of this reality and are knowingly using the one-state solution as a strategy to make this Holocaust happen. Either way, the result is a Holocaust against Jews, not Zionists.
Unfortunately, a post-Zionist, self-hating, far-left, anti-Zionist Jew will have a similar response to these questions. Not all Jews have solid self-preservation instincts, wisdom or sanity. Israel haters love to use this miserable and very articulate species on their side of debates.
Ask a supporter of the Iranian regime these questions, and the answer will be that they are not anti Jew but anti Zionist, that the Zionist regime is Satan, and Israel must be destroyed. The fact that this will result in millions of deaths of Jews, including non Zionists, doesn't bother Iran and its allies. This is because they define 'Zionist' as any Jew that wants their own state and army and refuses to submit to Muslim apartheid Sharia law and to random pogroms by angry Muslims. So this is yet another form of antisemitism with a very flimsy disguise.
Compare this with what an actual (imaginary) Jew-supporting anti-Zionist who practices what they preach should say: "I believe Zionism has some warped ideologies and would like to see Israel remain strong to protect its Jewish citizens but with a Jewish government of a very different character." This would be a valid form of pure anti-Zionist criticism without the antisemitic flavoring. But how many pro-Palestinian protesters have you met that actually called for this kind of government reform rather than the destruction of Israel which is to be replaced with a "free Palestine"? As mentioned before, the chant is not "remove the cancer from Israel", but "Israel IS the cancer".
The most prominent example that comes close to this type of imaginary criticism is the current president of the USA, Biden. Except, ironically, he calls himself a Zionist. Which means we still haven't found our imaginary ideal anti-Zionist who isn't an antisemite.
You see, someone that actually supports Jews staying alive and protecting themselves understands that they can't do this without a state of their own. This is based on 1900 years of antisemitic history full of hundreds of pogroms, inquisitions, expulsions, and antisemitic laws within practically every Western country under the sun. This is also based on 100 recent years of terrorism from Arabs, as well as on their polls, their charters, their declarations, and numerous clear statements. Even if one believes in God to protect Jews, this doesn't preclude doing everything one can on a practical level. Therefore a person that wants Jews to live, criticizes the Israeli government, and defines Zionism simply as support for a Jewish state, ironically, would never consider being anti-Zionist. Given this definition of Zionism, being anti-Zionist means supporting a second Holocaust. Even Orthodox anti-Zionists would agree with this conclusion based on this specific definition. It all depends on how you define Zionism, QED.
Conclusion: Arguing this question takes debaters down a dead-end path. We must ask better questions, ones that reveal actual goals. Criticisms are welcome; disguised demands for genocide are not.