One of the sleights-of-language employed by pro-Arab propagandists to "prove" that Zionism is colonialism is that the Zionist themselves used that term. And the even called their kibbutzim "colonies".
One favoriate example is this section from Jabotinsky's Iron Wall:
My readers have a general idea of the history of colonisation in other countries. I suggest that they consider all the precedents with which they are acquainted, and see whether there is one solitary instance of any colonisation being carried on with the consent of the native population. There is no such precedent...It does not matter at all which phraseology we employ in explaining our colonising aims, Herzl's or Sir Herbert Samuel's. Colonisation carries its own explanation, the only possible explanation, unalterable and as clear as daylight to every ordinary Jew and every ordinary Arab. Colonisation can have only one aim, and Palestine Arabs cannot accept this aim.
As we all know, language usage alters and means one thing in one period and another in a different period.
Here is an example from this 1927 issue of a progressive magazine:
I've excerpted from one page and you can see that the term colonialization is used too describe what Russian Jews are doing in Birobyzhan, which is agricultural work. Zionism's first stage was returning Jews to their land in a very physical sense - becoming farmers. Socialist Zionists made it a "religion of labor". It did not mean intentionally taking over a country that one did nt have a claim to and ot kick the residents out but rather simply to bring the Jews back in.
The charge of settler-colonialism is false and misleading.
^
Posts
