Most of that is chest-puffing that ranges from vacuous to reactionary in a way that radlibs call progressive, but I don't think we're going to get anywhere trying to discuss it.

*You wont get anywhere trying to discuss it because you have made a blatant mistake and want to avoid it.

How is pointing out an example of blatant chauvinism that is borderline zionism, i.e. dismissing the fact that the "piece of land" you refer to is actually a truly beautiful sovereign nation whose indigenous inhabitants have decided to call Palestine? Like its not up for anyone else to debate, "that piece of land" is called Palestine. Its kind of disturbing how you think it is "vacuous" or "reactionary" to respect the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. Thinking the name of "that piece of land" is up for debate already concedes to a zionist framing of the invasion and genocide. The land is already a country called Palestine and it is being invaded by zionists who want to ethnically cleanse the indigenous population via murder and expulsion. This is a fact and it is unacceptable to say otherwise.

but you've completely lost the plot if you think that people are dying for what a piece of land is named rather than how the people who are on it (or those who have been wrongfully denied a place on it) are treated

Strawman argument. Palestinians are dying because the zionist entity is killing them in a genocide. They are fighting to expel a settler colonial entity and its invaders from their land so they can live in peace. The "piece of land" is already a sovereign country called "Palestine", why would they be fighting for what it is named when it is already called "Palestine"?

because people can and already do call it different things anyway

Zionists aren't people. 2) There are some people who think black people aren't human, similarly, there are some zionists who think that the country of Palestine doesn't exist. They can think whatever they want but at the end of the day they are deluded and their opinions are rubbish.

Zohran has been very clear in opposing those things

Accepting "israel has a right to exist" renders the rest moot because you've already conceded that an invading cancer that has stolen the land of a sovereign nation through a genocide of its indigenous population should continue to exist on said stolen land. That is already a military occupation, an act of genocide, and apartheid. A big concession to a zionist framing of the genocide which does not recognize Palestinian self-determination, a hallmark of liberal zionism. Furthermore the zionist concept of "israel" itself is fundamentally and inextricably a settler-colonial jewish-supremacist ethnostate. You can't say " has a right to exist but I'm fully against the idea of ethnostates!".

This is already enough to point out how he is a filthy liberal zionist.