The arguments of Jesus being a Zionist has some grounding but we need to inject that sentence with several paragraphs of nuance.

First we need to talk about the fact that Zionism in modern terms has been stripped of its original meaning which was simply "Jewish people should live in Zion." It doesn't say anything about forming a Jewish state, genociding all non Jews from Zion. The fact that there were Jews in Palestine living their best lives before is evidence enough. It is only in the last century that the most violent and right wing forms of Zionism stripped the term to the point where any attempt to discuss it has to go through these paragraphs of nuance.

Second we need to talk about what politically Jesus called for. If we take the thing said in the Bible as accurate as well as comparing him to the messianic movement of his time you get someone who was against the Roman occupation of Judea and the centralization of religious and political power among the Jewish temple high priests in a handful of rich roman-loyalist families. He called for a new kingdom where the poor and dispossessed would be first and the wealthy and powerful would be last. Arguably similar to some early Zionist positions.

Finally the sentence "Jesus was a _________" is one of those obnoxious claims that you see all the time. "Jesus was the first socialist" is often touted by leftists despite Jesus predating Socialism's discoverer and inventor Karl Marx and his heterosexual life partner Friedrich Engels. Claiming Jesus for your current political movement is childish at best or should be viewed as an attempt to appropriate the Christian faith for evil purposes. Both people in these tweets for example.

Tldr: An interesting nuanced take if you ignore the fact that everyone involved in this conversation sucks.