House Arab, Hussein Ibish (Senior Research Fellow at the American Task Force on Palestine) insists he is neither a collaborator nor a Zionist, in his piece: “No, Of Course I’m Not” http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/11/still-not-a-zionist.html : 

"Since the emergence of the one-state movement, I’ve been routinely described by the pro-Palestinian far right and ultra-left as a “Zionist,” and even a “traitor” and “collaborator,” because I remain committed to ending the occupation and establishing a Palestinian state alongside Israel.”

But then he proceeds to prove exact opposite by:

disparaging the one-state solution

“For some, the term “Zionist” is simply a useful pejorative to attack the reputation of Arabs who seek peace, or who deviate from the increasingly intolerant one-state dogma.”

insinuating that non-Jews can’t be Zionists:

“So, of course I’m not a “Zionist.” Whether or not to define oneself as a Zionist is really an issue for those who identify themselves as Jewish.”

arguing that Zionism does not equal racism and injustice

“However, as many Jews of varying backgrounds and perspectives have demonstrated, one can be staunchly pro-Israel, and in that sense “Zionist,” without supporting occupation, settlements or racism against Palestinians.”

calling for our “understanding” and “respect” for Zionism as an ideology and political  identity

“Zionism remains the dominant Jewish national narrative, and this narrative can and should be understood, by others, especially in the interests of peace. All present-day national narratives and identities are ultimately based on fantasies about the past, present and future. From a historical, intellectual and philosophical perspective they are as firm and fixed as children’s sandcastles. But they serve the immediate needs, aspirations and yearnings of their constituencies and, as political realities, they must be respected, despite their well-concealed hollowness.”

These and other excerpts from his article (not to mention his other utterances and work in general) expose Ibish’s attempts to not merely normalize Israel as a state, but Zionism as an ideology. If we are to take the standard definition of Zionism, or the “lowest common denominator” of most definitions of Zionism as Gideon Shimoni terms it—the Jewish right to national self-determination in Eretz Israel—then Ibish at very minimum represents a Zionist-enabler, if not an outright Zionised [and not merely colonized] intellectual, in light of his above rationalization of Zionism.