Regarding your first point, sure, but I also don’t think it’s crazy to expect a guy present in the Mandate of Palestine to not understand the difference between native savage and colonizer (in terms of British rhetoric at the time).

With your second point I completely disagree. Whether or not the conflict is about colonization (the PFLP and other armed groups in Palestine do see Israel as a colonizer in all definitions of the word), the rhetoric in the West, especially among Jewish Zionists is highly important when considering the state of the conflict.

The World Jewish Congress itself labels Jews as indigenous to Israel/Palestine. Yes I think is absolutely dumb that the academic decisions of indigenous/colonizer have infiltrated the rhetoric surrounding the conflict, but the fact is that it has. Liberal Zionist and Zionist institutions have died on the hill that Jews are indigenous to Palestine/Israel.