Saying affiliation with a “Zionist organization” is “Zionism-neutral at best” still assumes that any association is inherently an endorsement - even if partial - of its politics.

Because it IS. See above.

Affiliation doesn’t automatically mean ideological alignment,

It does when the group in question has only one purpose and that purpose is ideological.

if you think it does here, you still have to show why.

I have, see above.

You’re also collapsing “Jewish affairs” into “Zionism”

No. I'm specifically saying that conflating Israel has Jewdom is zionism. Because that's literally what zionism is.

I wouldn't assume that a group called "Jewish Affairs" with no mention of Israel would automatically be zionist.

You're skipping a whole mess of context, making it increasingly difficult to assume that you're arguing in good faith.

That’s the leap your Nazi analogy skips over - it only works if you’ve already decided the affiliation is inherently culpable.

Nope. Again, "Israel and Jewish Affairs" ≠ "Jewish Affairs". To wring the very last drop out of the same comparison, "national socialist worker party of Germany" ≠ "German Socialist Party"

By your “10 Nazis at a table” standard, Daryl Davis - the black musician who’s convinced dozens of KKK members to leave the group - would be “white supremacy neutral at best"

Ok, that does it. DEFINITELY arguing in good faith, if not absolutely deranged.

Either way, not worth any more of my time and effort. Have the day you deserve.