In the public discourse about the Middle East, the definitions of words matter greatly. When we are not aligned in our definitions, we risk talking past one another or misrepresenting one another’s viewpoints in ways that do not advance mutual understanding. And when our definitions are deficient in some way, these deficiencies emerge in the discourse as well. This raises a question for contested terms and phrases like Zionism, Intifada, and many others: what criteria, tests, or standards should we use to evaluate definitions for such terms before we use them in dialogue? Or, to put it simply, What makes a definition of a contested term like Zionism or Intifada reasonable?
On January 27, 2026, from 11am-12:30pm, CEHV Associate Director Dr. Aaron Yarmel will facilitate a dialogue about this question. We will pursue this question by identifying rival answers to it before examining the best arguments for these answers. This will not be a debate in which participants defend a side, nor will it be a sharing session in which participants share their points of view without critique or commentary. In fact, participants will, at no point, need to disclose their points of view in order to participate fully in the dialogue. What this will be instead is a collaborative process of working together to identify the best answers to an important question before rigorously examining the best arguments for and against those answers.
This event is supported by the MCRME Project/Global Arts and Humanities Cross-Disciplinary Research Exchange and co-sponsored by the Middle East Studies Center, the Melton Center for Jewish Studies, and CEHV. It is the third event in our series of dialogues about the Middle East.