Are you claiming that Zionism is specifically tied to the Torah concept of “Eretz Yisroel” and NOT about any land that is not EY?
When you wrote “the zionist of today is the one who advocates for a jewish state and its welfare in EY”, do you mean to say that zionism does NOT advocate for the welfare of the state outside of EY (like in Eilat)?
If what matters to Zionism is the complete borders of its current State regardless of any Torah status of EY , why do you have issue with the suggested definition that:
Zionism is the movement which advocated for establishment of an independent ‘Jewish’ state anywhere.
Moving forward, have you come to drop your unexplained protests against the definitions I provided of Moshiach and Gulis, or can you explain them and offer a more agreeable alternative definition?
(I think you may be sensing your own internalized zionist kefira clouding your thoughts, H”Y)