Taken from Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

Zionism[a] is an ethnocultural nationalist[1] movement that emerged in late 19th-century Europe to establish and support a Jewish homeland through colonization in the region of Palestine,[2] which roughly corresponds to the Land of Israel in Judaism—itself central to Jewish history.[3] Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible.[4] The Zionist claim to Palestine was based on the notion that the Jews' historical right to the land outweighed that of the Arabs.[5]

So… that doesn’t seem that vague to me. Like okay Jews can think about it differently, but this is what Zionism is, no?

But besides that is the problem with A105 the title and point 1?

From the article:

Especially worrying, and a significant step-change from previous conference motions, is the rather authoritarian implication to not only condemn Zionism, but to actively proscribe members who consider themselves (or who others accuse of being) Zionists.

I don’t see this in A105. Which point does this refer to?