The reason to object to this one item is that it is the definition of an ethnostate. A state that relies on excluding people on the basis of their ethnicity or religion does not deserve to "exist."

That's to to say that Israel needs to be destroyed or that anyone (other than the settlers) needs to be displaced, it's to say that ehtnostates are racist and inherently untenable. And this single concession to an ethnostate necessitates everything else that we're seeing.

Why do you think the Zionists are so hellbent on expansion and so desperate to persuade Jews from all over the world to move there? Why has every single Israeli government supported the unquestionably illegal and violent actions of the settlers? Why were the original Zionists so resistant to simply moving to Palestine and living together with the Christians and Muslims in a single democratic state (as the Palestinian Arabs suggested and as Arabs and Jews had already been dong in Palestine for centuries)?

Because once you accept the premise that this land is first and foremost for Jews, all Jews all over the world, and that Jews have exclusive rights to this land and on this land that no-one, not even the indigenous people have, you either need to limit the number of Jews living there (and again, Israel has clearly been pushing for the exact opposite for its entire existence) or expand into neighbouring territory. Otherwise you'll run out of space. That's why the settlements and the ongoing theft of land is necessary.

And as for the non-Jews who live in Israel and around, what do you do about them? Well, you have to at the very least disenfranchise them, but you also have to worry about their numbers. Hence, for example, the Gaza disengagement and the occasional "mowing of the grass."

There is no benign way to do Zionism. Not in the beginning, and not now as it tries to continue. The concept is flawed at the root and will lead to death and misery for Israelis and Palestinians until it's abandoned.