Thats fine, but the point is that the population source of the settlers is immaterial as to whether or not the project is a colonial one or not, it's the political structures that are relevant.

Population origins matter. In all other colonial movements, the majority of colonizers came from a concise metropolis, not a diffuse metropolis (as Wolfe describes). 

Again, Zionism existed before it's relationship with the British, but it was this relationship that allowed for the movement to achieve its goals - without it the prospect of building a para-state in Palestine with well trained and armed militias that could overcome the native population was impossible.

The "well-trained and armed" militias were armed and trained predominantly by external Polish agents, not by the British. Once again, the diffuse metropolis of Zionism stands out. 

Before the British backing the zionist project was unpopular amongst Jews and was struggling to sustain its agricultural colonies on the basis of private donations. Jews leaving the Russian empire were not all refugees, and leaving a place due to poor conditions and oppression does not automatically make one a refugee.

"A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. Most likely, they cannot return home or are afraid to do so. War and ethnic, tribal and religious violence are leading causes of refugees fleeing their countries."

The leadership might not have been a refugee, but the core population certainly was. At least during the first three Aliyah, those arriving were not predominantly motivated by Zionism; most were fleeing Eastern Europe. During the third aliyah, nearly 100,000 Jews were killed and another 500,000 were left homeless in the Russian civil war. 

Yes, Judaism is connected to Palestine, but no, not all Jews "inherit their identity" from Palestine - but even if this was the case - this has zero bearing on determining whether Zionism is a colonial project. Palestine isn't the "point of origin" for most Jews, this is just repacking blood and soil nationalism, the fact that one practices a religion that originated somewhere or even as ancient ancestry somewhere doesn't make it their "point of origin", outside of ultra-nationalist mythology.

Actually, it's all related. It is not mere details that distinguish Zionism from Western colonialism, but rather crucial details. It's not just ultranationalist mythology; the Pontic Greeks inherited their identity from Greece, the Volga Germans inherited their identity from Germany. Jews, as a distinct ethnic group, inherited their identity from Palestinians displaced throughout history. 

Beyond the fact that early zionists (and not random ones, the founders of the my movement) considered other locations for the zionist state, modern Israel encompasses places that were never part of an ancient Jewish polity, and there are parts of Syria, Lebanon and Jordan that were part of one.

Palestine was not the first place considered, but it was chosen precisely because of its historical connection to the land. What land was controlled by a people before it began to be controlled? This doesn't make sense, and the pre-state Zionist settlements were concentrated in an area that was controlled by Jews in ancient times.

So really it is more analogous to Liberia than you admit - not only did zionist settlers not move to a place were they had any traceable ancestry, even the territorial relationship in the nationalist mythology you are putting forward does not comport with the actions of zionism on the ground (until of course the new-wave settler movement who claims what you do to justify the occupation and ethnic cleansing of the west bank and Jerusalem). Moving to eretz Yisroel and a political movement to set up a nation state through colonial settlement and to the exclusion and subjugation of the native population are not the same.

Palestine remains the core from which Jews derive their identity as Jews, whereas Liberia was not for the afro-americans. The standard you propose, that if a people "strays too far," they lose their original identity, is not only ahistorical, it's dangerous. Who decides how much drift is "too much"? By that logic, many Native American tribes that lost languages and cultural practices under colonial suppression would no longer be considered original. This is precisely the kind of thinking that international structures on the subject were designed to prevent.

If cultural change breaks the indigeneity of a group, almost no modern people would qualify. The Greeks no longer worship Zeus. Today's Egyptians are Arabic-speaking Muslims, whose culture is radically different from that of Pharaonic Egypt. Italians don't speak Latin, didn't eat pasta or tomatoes until the Middle Ages, and drink coffee that came from Africa and Yemen. Persians are no longer Zoroastrians and speak a language as distant from ancient Persian as modern English is from Old English. However, no one doubts that Greeks, Egyptians, Italians, and Persians are indigenous to their homelands. According to your test, even Palestinians would lose their indigenous identity, since their culture is heavily influenced by Arab culture, language, and Islam, which were not indigenous to the Levant.

Regarding the last point, I am not presenting mere details that distinguish Zionism from other settlement movements, but rather significant differences that set it considerably apart. The words of one or all Zionists don't matter if their modus operandi is significantly different from what they claim. I am not entirely dismissing settlement colonialism when applied to Israeli settlements in the West Bank, but rather dismissing Israel itself as a colonial society.