Firstly, I'd like to make it clear that it was a letter that was not sent.
Irrelevant; whether he sent it or not does not obfuscate Herzl's intentions and what he meant.
while many Zionists at the time, including Herzl and Jabotinsky often referred to the creation of the state of Israel as a colonialist project. They were calling it colonialist to garner support from Western powers who could help with their plight, and because colonialism was popular at the time.
This is deception, why would you promulgate this antisemitic conspiracy theory upon your own people, like hello, is this really the argument you wanna make? That the Jewish Zionists tricked the Europeans into creating a state for them? Don't you understand what sort of ramifications it would have for the Jewish people to deceive the imperialists into creating a state for them? I'm not buying this.
To call upon the Europeans to act as beneficiaries for the founding of a state as a bulwark against the Barbarians is a textbook example of imperialism and colonialism, because that's what Herzl intended to do! Why do you think the colonialists would support them, if not for colonialist reasons? Do you seriously believe that all this rhetoric was just to fool colonialists into supporting them?
With that said, I have mentioned before in der Judenstaat that Herzl depended on the Europeans for the establishment of a Jewish state in ASIA as a wall of defense for Europe. Furthermore, we can corroborate the meaning of colonization based on Herzl in his book:
Should the Powers declare themselves willing to admit our sovereignty over a neutral piece of land, then the Society will enter into negotiations for the possession of this land. Here two territories come under consideration, Palestine and Argentina. In both countries important experiments in colonization have been made, though on the mistaken principle of a gradual infiltration of Jews. An infiltration is bound to end in disaster. It continues till the inevitable moment when the native population feels itself threatened, and forces the Government to stop the further influx of Jews. Immigration is consequently futile unless based on an assured supremacy.
The Society of Jews will treat with the present masters of the land, putting itself under the protectorate of the European Powers, if they prove friendly to the plan.
Here he references the first Aliyah as a failed colonial experiment, as it caused discontent among the native population. Thus, he clearly states that the colonization of Palestine can not happen unless on assured supremacy, which is to say, through the protection of the European powers. If the colonizers prove to be friendly towards the society of Jews, they will defend them against the native population and successfully colonize Palestine.
What is the plan? To settle Palestine with the homecoming Jewish people.
Sorry, need I remind you the last time this happened? Perhaps you're familiar with Liberia and how that backfired. Despite it being an attempt at returning former African-American slaves to Africa, the native population were ultimately alienated and are currently experiencing apartheid, since the African-American immigrants refused to assimilate with the native population, bringing their USamerican culture with them with the US acting as their beneficiaries. Liberia is considered a colonial state no less different than the Zionist state. We're seeing the exact historical ramifications as a result of these "homecomings". Do you think Liberia was a successful "land-back" project?
I'm pretty sure taking land back that you once had isn't mentioned in any explanation of colonialism.
Land back from whom??? The native population who already lived there?? You don't get to co-opt an Indigenous American movement that has consistently spoken out against the Zionist project.
As for Jabotinsky, the dude literally wrote an entire manifestation justifying colonization and making references to previous colonial ventures. He was being very sincere with how he wanted to colonize Palestine. I have NO idea why you would even invoke his name. Either way, let's put colonization into context:
There can be no voluntary agreement between ourselves and the Palestine Arabs. Not now, nor in the prospective future. I say this with such conviction, not because I want to hurt the moderate Zionists. I do not believe that they will be hurt. 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.
It is clear what the supposed meaning of colonization here, given that Jabotinsky was a contemporary of Herzl. There is no way that you can conclude that both Herzl and Jabotinsky differed in how they defined the terminology, especially given the fact that Jabotinsky referenced Hernan Cortez, Pizarro and the pilgrim fathers in the very next paragraph and both concluded that the native population wasn't welcoming to the settler colonizers. Jabotinsky even mentions the fact that regardless of phraseology, Herzl and his meaning of the term colonization bear no other understanding than what they specifically wanted to do, colonize Palestine. Like I don't know what to tell you!
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 (referencing the Amalekites), 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.
They [The Arabs] feel at least the same instinctive jealous love of Palestine, as the old Aztecs felt for ancient Mexico , and their Sioux for their rolling Prairies.
