Another logical trap is "begging the question" - when you assume your own premis as part of an argument. Suppose my son complains he does not want to eat vegetables. Were he to argue that "children should not be forcefed food that is tasteless", he would merely be begging the question: he has assumed his concluding premis - supposedly tasteless food need not be eaten by children- as part of his argument. It is verbiage without content.
In response to the comment that explained that Avi Shafran is after all a chareidi, and therefore he sees Torah and State as mutually exclusive values, I agree wholeheartedly, but that is not an argument - that is begging the question. An argument (or opinion essay) should explain to others why they should share your POV, not repeat your premis.
I made no attempt to defend the argument that the centrality of the state and torah are not mutually exclusive because as long as that possibility exists - and even the comment admitted it does, just labelled "religious zionism" - then Shafran's claim of either/or is a false dilemma.
Anyway, enough with the mini-logic course. Here is the real question that needs to be addressed by Shafran or anyone else in chareidi-land. Without labels that beg the question - e.g. "I believe X because I am chareidi and that's what we do", or "I don't believe Y because that is religious zionism and I don't do that", WHY is the belief in the centrality of the State and the centrality of Torah mutually exclusive values?