When you are a member of the anti-Zionist camp, it is pretty much expected that you need to blame Israel for everything that goes wrong and berate it no matter what is happening. Unfortunately, this often leads to problems with logic, and anti-Zionists often end up contradicting themselves or twisting themselves into knots. We saw a prime example of this with the ending of the settlement freeze.
Now, on the one hand many anti-Zionists on the Huffington Post railed against the renewed construction because they believed it would sink the newly resumed peace talks. This is not a particularly controversial view, in my opinion. Here is an example:
The trouble, of course, is that the settlements have been under a moratorium for the past ten months, and no progress was made and no one was claiming that Abbas was "rejecting peace" when he refused to talk for three-quarters of that time. But ah! The anti-Zionists, in the form of talkbacker here, have an answer to that too!
The ethereal standard moves again. When Israel is "freezing" (even though it is more of a "slowing") that is not good enough. But when Israel is not freezing, suddenly freezing would have been good enough if only they could be convinced to do it a second time. Of course, one can presume that should there be another settlement freeze this time, it will (again) not be good enough.
The more honest of the Huffington Posters have made their position clear: All the Jews must leave before there can be peace. Too bad that is not even close to a realistic point of view, but realism has never been something that is valued among AZs, in my understanding.