Zig doesn't have unlimited compile-time execution and what it has is strictly weaker than Rust's macros [1]. Rather, it has one carefully designed construct that is both very simple and very expressive, and yet isn't as weird or as dangerous as macros. It is not "extreme customisation" but just the right amount to make the language both simple and expressive without extreme measures like macros. Zig accepts that macros are problematic, and shows how far you can go without them altogether. OTOH, while macros are common enough in Rust that while you may not write them yourself all the time, you do use them frequently.

I guess that there is some small truth to your allusion to the static-vs-dynamic debate, but Zig does give you errors at compile-time, and elaborate things it can check at runtime are much easier to express than in Rust. But I would say that Rust is a language in a well-known tradition, and is clearly a "cleaned up C++", while Zig is something that we haven't seen before. It is not dynamic in the same sense as dynamic languages -- you get the checks done at compile-time -- but it is not part of the familiar tradition of typed languages or even any low-level language.

I'm not a devout minimalist, but when it comes to low-level programming in particular, language simplicity is a very important feature, and before Zig it wasn't clear it was achievable at all in low-level languages without significantly compromising on expressivity and safety.