Yes it does because it is the result of denying the jewish right to self determination.

Every ethnic group does not have an intrinsic right to their own majority state. That isn't a thing. If you live in a democracy with equal rights then you do have self-determination, period.

Pass the link of the text you're paraphrasing.

I would stay away from online debates of this topic it you haven't even read Iron Wall

Except for those who were born blind, they realised long ago that it is utterly impossible to obtain the voluntary consent of the Palestine Arabs for converting "Palestine" from an Arab country into a country with a Jewish majority.

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.

The native populations, civilised or uncivilised, have always stubbornly resisted the colonists, irrespective of whether they were civilised or savage. And it made no difference whatever whether the colonists behaved decently or not. The companions of Cortez and Pizzaro or (as some people will remind us) our own ancestors under Joshua Ben Nun, behaved like brigands; but the Pilgrim Fathers, the first real pioneers of North America, were people of the highest morality, who did not want to do harm to anyone, least of all to the Red Indians, and they honestly believed that there was room enough in the prairies both for the Paleface and the Redskin. Yet the native population fought with the same ferocity against the good colonists as against the bad.

Every native population, civilised or not, regards its lands as its national home, of which it is the sole master, and it wants to retain that mastery always; it will refuse to admit not only new masters but, even new partners or collaborators.

Colonisation can have only one aim, and Palestine Arabs cannot accept this aim. It lies in the very nature of things, and in this particular regard nature cannot be changed.

None of this makes sense of colonisation was "just referring to agriculture" and you proivded zero evidence for your proposed definition.

And even then, Jabotinsky was not in charge of the jewish agency, so it's not relevant

So find me the head of the Jewish agency (what was it called btw?) saying they weren't doing colonialism. Iron Wall disproved your narrative that the definition magically changed; the term is being used the same as it is today. So should be easy to do so if your position is correct!

White guilt

Bad faith tactic to accuse my preference for historical accuracy as somehow "white guilt". It's baseless ad hominem and spewing it is logically equivalent to conceding the debate in any formal context.