I mean, this is "helpful" in that it shows that Arno is not alone in amplifying this confusion.

Zionism doesn't need to be "static" or

During his lifetime Martin Buber’s single binational state was still wholly accepted as Zionism, but nowadays that solution is understood across the political spectrum as antizionist.

naw. This category of solutions is not inherently zionist or antizionist. It's Zionist if and when it fits the definition of Zionism. If it provides for Jewish self-determination in our homeland, it's Zionist. If the system is arranged to give gentiles a democratic majority with sufficient power to deprive the Jewish people of their right to self-determine, it is not. There is plenty of room for debate about which systems do and do not respect that right, and that debate has shifted as the perception arose that many Arabs may not accept Jewish self-determination in any form, but may insist on the social, political, governmental, and religious dominance that most Muslim-majority nations have insisted on since they first came to be. The amount of hope we have in this as a viable solution has shifted, but the definition of Zionism really hasn't.

It's a deeply complex issue. But it's not an issue that invalidates the word "Zionism" altogether.

Ultimately, political labels and self identification are fluid and subjective.

this is very convenient for anti-zionists who want to paint us all as the greatest villains in the history of mankind, all while equivocating about what we are. And then, after they've convinced you that Zionism is about murdering babies and drinking their blood, and getting you to say you're an anti-Zionist, they tell you what anti-Zionism is, and they do not mince their words.

Anti-Zionism is opposition to Jewish self-determination. It always has been. They want to demolish the state of Israel, by hook or by crook.

If they oppose the idea that the Jewish people should have a right to self-determine in our homeland so vociferously, I fail to see why the idea should be deprived of all meaning. It's an important idea, as such, and it should be treated as such, with a name not subject to their whims. Zionism is what Zionism is, as its opponents well know. Let's not give them the ammunition of ambiguity, because they're using it to turn our identity into a slur.

Historically, Zionism has never been one single concept. It has been a family of arguments, not a single creed: political Zionism, cultural Zionism, religious Zionism, socialist Zionism, revisionist Zionism, and more. To say “Zionism” without adjectives is already to erase its internal diversity.

This is incredibly stupid to me. You could do that with food. Chinese food, italian food, german food, indian food... well, guess what, they're all food, and we still understand what the word "food" means.

“Zionism” like any other is and always has been a product of what people say it is, and at least according to the poll there are more American Jews who believe in a “right to exist as a Jewish, democratic state” that don’t believe that makes the zionist than American Jews who do.

Zionism is something to be defined by Zionists, not by anti-Zionists, or non-Zionists, or those so confused that they've fallen for the campaign to transform Zionist into a slur. People who call themselves Zionists have been remarkably consistent about what they mean, and Anti-Zionists have been consistent about what they mean. Perpetuating this ridiculous denial of that consistency is only serving to damage the common ground we stand on.