But that implies that most antizionist Jews think Zionist Jews should not be allowed to be Zionists and should be forced to stop. I don't think I've ever met an antizionist Jew who believes this.
I think this still misunderstands what people say when they call themselves antizionist. They aren't using it mean "against the identity category of Zionist." They mean they are against Zionism as a political force that resulted in and maintains the state of Israel.
I understand that a lot of Zionists nowadays have redefined Zionism to mean "the desire to return from exile." This is not what this term has historically meant; it specifically referred to a movement to relocate to Israel in an immediate sense and then to establish a country there. Imagine it's 1920 in Vilna: a "Zionist" is someone who's learning Hebrew and participating in a youth movement to move to Mandatory Palestine. Someone who isn't invested in that project is not a Zionist. The term has now expanded to mean someone who supports that project even if they're not participating in it, but it still refers specifically to that project.
I think the move to redefine Zionism this way has utlitiy because it enables Zionists to claim that antizionism is inherently antisemitic. I think it also serves to confuse and muddy the waters; and I think this is a feature, not a bug.
I also think it's to do with Religious Zionism tying the state of Israel back into Biblical prophecies of the messianic age; seeing Israel as "reishit tzmichat geulateinu" (the beginning of our redemption) and seeing Israel as the modern realization of the longed-for return. Just because a religious-political movement thinks that Israel marks the dawning of the messianic age and the end times doesn't mean Zionism is automatically back-projected millennia into the past. This is as silly as saying Jesus was Palestinian and Moses wore a shtreimel.
Look, ultimately, descriptivism means that if this is what Zionism is coming to mean in Jewish English, then it will in fact "mean" that. Likewise "Palestinian" to refer to everyone who ever lived in what's now Israel/Palestine pre-1880 -- if that's how the word is used then that's what it means. But both of these shifts are ahistorical and unhelpful imo. Especially since (most) Jewish antizionists are not using this definition, so it's not helpful in a discussion about them.
And at the same time, the left has redefined Zionism in a different direction -- they have defined it as the system under which Israel operates -- the system under which Palestinians experience oppression and violence, as well as the forces of ethnosupremacy operating in that dynamic.
A Jew who defines themself as antizionist is stating an opposition to the aforementioned system, and also to Israel in its identity as a Jewish state, and also to the founding of Israel and the Zionist drive to establish the state. Some believe Zionist immigration should not have occurred; others have no issue with the immigration but believe that a Jewish state should not have been established. Many are also diasporists and focus on opposing the concept of "negation of the diaspora."
To the extent that they think about Zionists, it's usually confusion about why Zionists are Zionists, or a desire to get them to change. But the core of Jewish antizionism is about Zionism as both a system and an ideology. The term "antizionist" should be read as "[anti-zionism]-ist" rather than "[anti]-[zionist]."
Oh, and there are Jews who believe halacha as a system is harmful, and I don't think they should be tossed out of communities either. But that's not my point. My point is that "antizionists should be tossed out of even non-zionist Jewish communities" is saying "you cannot be part of the community if you oppose the State of Israel." It is straightforwardly saying that. And I think it is absolutely absurd to make Jewish communal participation contingent on someone's views of a state.