I think that is valid, different people may likely have different ideas on what Zionism even means. Many on this board seem to have turned it into a four letter word, and even discussing the topic draws ire, but I do not feel that those who demonize "Christian Zionists" have even bothered to try to understand what "Zionism" even means to those Christians that they are demonizing, and I definitely feel that it means something different to me than the way "Zionism" is represented by detractors. I think for my part I did (somewhat?) define what Zionism means to me in my reply.

Glanced at BB comment, while I think it is a decent attempt to try to classify different views of Zionism, I feel that it is likely inadequate, perhaps more labels are needed, or it might be better to think of it in terms of some sort of spectrum than labelling "zionists" under merely a few different labels.

One issue I have with the classification that BB uses, is that of the "Khazarian Zionists" being the evil Zionists who try to cause never-ending conflict. I find this description inadequate for a number of reasons. I feel that I tend to lean towards the perspective that u/Magavoices espouses regarding the "Khazarian question." I feel that the entire narrative of the "Khazarian mafia" is a psyop. Calling the ones that are trying to cause never-ending conflict "Kazarians" is making it into a racial issue, I do not believe that all Khazar-descended Jews align with this... ideology? Is causing chaos and war an ideology? Of course, there is a group that fits that description, of those trying to cause never-ending conflict that are working as pawns of Satan, I just don't think they can be neatly fit into a box of "Oh, they all came from Khazar bloodlines." or "Oh, they are all Jews," or any of the other boxes that I see people trying to put it in. I would not even be convinced that they are all a singular monolithic group, per se... except perhaps "pawn of Satan" but I understand wanting to give them some sort of name or label...

My second contention would be that I would not consider this group to be true "Zionists" but simply using Zionism to achieve their own ends, that being chaos, perpetual war, etc. It is really no different than the way the "bad guys," who in lieu of me not wanting to call them Khazarians, I will just refer to them as "them" lol, I do not see this group explicitly as an ethnicity. They used U.S. patriotism to push their own agendas after 9/11, and they can easily do the same thing with Zionism. I would not call those that abused patriotic sentiments to drag the U.S. into endless wars patriots, and I would not call those who try to use Zionism towards those same nefarious ends Zionists.

The other groups that BB classifies as Israeli Zionists and Christian Zionists, I would probably not want to put them into such a confined box either. I would not call Israeli Zionists misguided or selfish, per se, manipulated, probably, yes. If one is being manipulated they may also be misguided in a sense, but I don't think wanting to live in the ancestral homeland of your forefathers or to have a state is misguided or selfish (if that is even how they define Zionism), and I do not think that Zionists in Israel would see their idea of Zionism as being related to the "Palestinian problem." The majority of Jews in Israel are liberal, and they held pro-palestinian sentiments before the October 7th event happened. I don't think their concept of Zionism was such that it would mean to remove Palestinians. In other words, the war with Gaza should be separated from the concept of Zionism, excepting that "they," perhaps, targeted Zionists to incite the war. Just like "they" targeted patriots to incite war after 9/11. The one difference is that while 9/11 was not actually perpetrated by muslims, 10/7 was. Bloodthirsty zealots are easy to manipulate, and the fact that it really was perpetrated by Hamas just makes the response of the Israeli "patriots" even more polarized.

Then the Christian Zionists "who support Israel no matter what." First thing I would ask is what does "support" mean to them. It is likely that it means something different to different people. Does it mean have the US govt. send them money? To me, absolutely not. To others, it might. To me it means pray for their salvation, and that God's perfect will might be accomplished. That's pretty much the end of it. "Support" to me also means evangelism, and humanitarian support. I have no problem with someone sending a check to Meir Panim Maybe moral support, like, "Hey! You have a right to exist and I support that," while also being able to levy valid criticisms. But others who would call themselves a "Christian Zionist" they might have a completely different perspective.

As for "they believe all this mess is necessary for Jesus' second coming and for ushering in the Kingdom of Heaven." You got me on that one. I do believe that. That doesn't mean I condone everything that happens, there is a difference between God using the actions of people, and events to complete his sovereign will and him condoning those actions and events. God can use evil for good. If the existence of Israel is evil, God will use it for good. If the war that is going on over there is evil, God will use it for good. I do not condone the war. I don't condone either side's bloodlust. God will use it to accomplish his plan. And for what it's worth I think Gaza should be supported in the same ways. Pray for the people of Gaza. Pray that God uses all this to bring as many Gazans to Christ as possible. Evangelize. Give humanitarian aid (unfortunately very little of that gets through because of the UN).

As for dispensationalism, I never even knew what that even meant until relatively recently (like, last couple years), when I started investigating the topic on account of how frequently it is brought up (to demonize it). I then found that I agree with it on many points. It was like, "Gee why do people hate this dispensation thing so much? Oh, because it is true, lol." To be clear I do not consider myself a dispensationalist, I reserve the right to disagree with any aspect of it if the Holy Spirit leads me as such. But I do seem to align very closely with dispensational teaching theologically. If there are different ways to define dispensationalism that I am unaware of I don't know, but I am aware that there are varying dispensational perspectives, such as progressive dispensationalism, and hyperdispensationalism. I am not clear on the differences between these various dispensational perspectives. I have been focused on studying the neo-Calvinistic system, and more recently Eastern Orthodoxy, rather than studying the differences in these different dispensational views. To be blunt, I have my beliefs and I am unconcerned about what category of Christianity any of said views may fall under. I consider myself non-denominational.