You said the organizers couldn't agree on what it means. I'm just stating that doesn't seem to be true and I didn't give my definition of Zionism but what it seemed to be based on the article. Finally I used the words 'in this sense' to recognise that it was a particular, local definition. Quoting a dictionary definition doesn't change the fact that words in it can have very different meanings in different contexts. So your attack on my premise is flawed.
You gave a definition of Zionism that doesn’t match its actual, established meaning. Now you’re trying to justify redefining words by niche subgroups as not being confusing.
If the organizers of the event have chosen a different definition than the one that most Jewish (and non-Jewish) attendees would reasonably expect it's a recipe for confusion and exclusion. Dismissing those who use the correct definition as irrelevant is wild. You deny their legitimacy so a political agenda can take center stage. Redefining words, excluding people, it's all super gross and 1984 AF.
You’re still wrong, and your attempt to reframe this only reinforces the article’s point. Redefining terms like Zionism confuses and erases people who actually use them in their accepted sense. Using redefined words to ban/prohibit people is gross. Especially when under it's 'plain reading' the ban is effectively a ban on the majority of Jewish people. Defending it is gross. The burden is on event organizers to communicate effectively, and that burden includes using words common/standard definitions not Orwellian redefinitions done purely to politicize a word.
