My issue here is that the revisionist narrative that the author is employing to delegitimize not just the Zionist political ideology, but Jews as a whole:
The author implies Jews were not viewed as a different "race" prior to the 18th century when numerous references from as far back to the Roman Era refers to the Jews as a sinister, lesser "race" (Seneca the Younger being one off the top of my head).
At the start of the 6th Century BCE Hebrew was giving way to Aramaic and Greek as the spoken languages of the Jews and by the 3rd Century CE Hebrew stopped being a vernacular language entirely and instead became a ritual language that was reserved for literature and religion. Hebrew stopped being the vernacular language of the Jews long before the exile and as such isn't a legit criticism of post-exilic diaspora Jews.
Obviously there were pure-blooded Europeans who converted to Judaism in Ashkenaz, but Judaism came to Europe via slaves and wanderers following the Roman destruction of Israel. Judaism and Samaritanism are not proselyting world religions like Chrisianity and Islam, but are ethnoreligions that encompass the traditions and values of the Tribes of Israel. When one "converts" to Judaism you're not just changing your religion but your entire identity. Before a potential Jewish convert is given a Hebrew given name and is assigned the patronym Ben Avraham (Son of Abraham) they must permanently cut off all contact with their former family and first learn the Hebrew language well enough to stand before a Beth Din where they will be judged on their worthiness.
This might all sound extreme and cultist to outsiders, but you need to understanding when you "convert" you're not just adopting a new faith but being initiated into the Nation of Yisra'el. Even after all of this a "convert" is not considered a Y'hudi (Jew), but rather a Ger Tzedek (righteous stranger), which allows them to participate in religious and tribal matters with a few restrictions and makes them eligible for marriage to a Jew. My point in all of this being that for there to be European converts there had to be a preexisting Jewish community that had enough full-fledged Rabbis to both form a Beth Din and educate/train potential converts and enough laypeople to form a congregation for each Rabbi.
The author, like many anti-Zionists, fixates on Ashkenazim as if somehow they are less legitimate than any other Jewish subculture in the diaspora. Why does being mixed with Western Europeans disinherit you from your heritage but being mixed with Arabs, Berbers, Africans, or Indians not? And on top of that antizionists in this vein always try to push the narrative of the Jews living in the State of Israel being a bunch of pasty, cultureless Ashekaznim when the reality is that the overwhelmingly majority of the population is Sephardim and Mizrahim who were expelled from their host countries in North Africa and the Middle-East respectively.
I will make another post at a later date compiling all the evidence I've seen that shows that expelling the Palestinians from Eretz Yisra'el goes against Halakha (Jewish Tribal Law).