It differed originally from many of the other nationalist movements, in the sense that Zionists were spread around the world, and did not actually possess a homeland of their own, but required unilateral support from powerful nations in order to actually be granted such a land (not to mention the required assistance to actually defend it). As such, they contributed greatly to the founding of these sorts of "international constructs", as we know them today, in order to, for example, protect Jewish minorities from persecution.
The great contradiction is that the latter stage of Zionism, atleast at the hands of men like Netanyahu, has come to consider Israel to reside above any of such common international rules and standards, which originally aided in its foundation, and the defense of Jewish minorities against majority persecution.
In the Israeli context, I would regard the Palestinians to represent a proper "national struggle", more so than Israel's government. Much like, for example, during WW1, the Serbs represented a "nationalistic struggle" against Austro-Hungarian Empire. When large countries speak of the "dangers of nationalism", they usually refer to movements such as the Basques, Kurds, Palestinians, Kosovo, separating from the state, rather than they themselves exerting their own power over another.
You could consider Zionism to be a nationalist movement, for sure, but this would ignore the aspect of many prominent Zionists operating "globally", with the movement's success having occurred on a "global scale", rather than within their respective national structures. It required more than just a people fighting over their homeland, to see their will through.
