I can't say how many Israelis or American Jews think this way, but there is a logical/practical justification of Zionism that has nothing to do with religion or nebulous ethnic hatreds, which I think I've heard people claim (rightly or wrongly) didn't exist much before 1948 anyway.
The justification is, that anyone who has enough Jewish ancestry to have been targeted by the Nazis, can never be secure in any place other than Israel. That if Jews can exist at all, they must have at least as much right to exist there as anywhere else, and historically it's proven cannot defend as well anywhere else but a homeland they believe in.
I doubt this myself, that everyone who could've been exterminated in WWII is best off in Israel. But it seems like a western, developed country, type of rationalization that impedes how you frame things.
I'm not knowledgeable and haven't researched it, but my impression is at some point the definition of a Jew who has the right to return to Israel was changed to the Nazi definition of a Jew, on ethical grounds, and that would seem to imply a secular, utilitarian outlook not a religio/ethnic one that outsiders should be bewildered by.
I don't think this is too complicated, until the dispossessed are brought into it.
Again, I like the word "anachronistic". I have the impression that much like people project the US-Israel being allies too far back, they also project the Israel/Palestine conflict too far back.
People say that many conflicts in Africa are not ancient either, but constructed during colonialism.