Prof. Dror raises essentially three critiques with the book: 1) that it is overly concerned with 'scholastic debates' of 'authors which are of limited interest to other than sect members'; 2) that it does not take into sufficient account of the need for 'global politicies' against the 'real novel issue' posed by 'armed prophets' who use 'mass killing weapons'; and 3) that he provides no alternatives in any way, with the implication that the reason is Prof. Toscano cannot face the possibility that the realities of human nature do not allow for his values. Prof. Dror lets us know that he will engage with Prof. Toscano's idea of 'fanaticism' more in his own upcoming book.
First, writers such as Badiou, and definitely Zizek are not some marginal figures only enjoyed by some sort of 'sect'. In fact, one might argue, for example, in the case of Zizek, that one would be hard-pressed to find a more popular living philosopher, who enjoys almost a rock-star status across a number of disciplines and even in the public at large, regardless of what people think of his work. Likewise, if not already familiar with Badiou, a quick wikipedia search, and you'll discover that not only is he widely translated into a number of languages, but he is also an extremely influential and prominent French thinker in both the intellectual and artistic world, if not the political. In other words, by no means 'cult' figures, and in fact quite the contrary - Toscano is dealing with some of the most well-known, if albiet polarizing, figures on the intellectual landscape today in philosophy.
Second, in my own understanding, the whole thesis of 'fanaticism' is to get us away from thinking about these bipolar visions of the world as 'armed prophets' (e.g., the Islamic terrorists) versus global policies (e.g., a militarized liberal humanitarian military regime). In other words, what stands behind Prof. Dror's comments is the idea that the 'global policies' are the representatives of liberalism, modesty, tolerance, progress and humanity - exactly what Toscano is trying to undermine, showing us that what we actually think of so often as liberal tolerance is anything but.
Third, Toscano does lead the reader somewhere beyond empty words such as 'patience' and 'emancipation'. Just off the cuff, his purpose is to get us to re-imagine our political vocabulary/imagination/strategies via the word and possibilities of fanaticism. One might think of this in psychoanalytic terms. You go to the shrink for years to deal with some particular trauma or phobia or whatever, and finally, you are able to overcome / work through this issue. As you sit up from the couch after your breakthrough, you realize that there are other problems both past, future and present. In such a situation, Prof. Dror seems to ask, what was the point of the therapy, all we did was get over one issue - but wouldn't even overcoming that one issue, especially if it was a big one (such as Toscano's topic), be worth while in and of itself regardless, and wouldn't that leave us in a new place?
All in all, Prof. Dror seems like a nice guy, but I'd try to set aside his criticisms and give Toscano's book a chance.