The Wikipedia may use that term - I'd never do so either.
People often fail to recognise just what a cynical and brutal colonialisation this was - the first Polish settlers got off the boat with clubs and guns in Jun 1882 and were discovered to have been killing locals in December of that year. The Rohovot settlement (Rothschild) put one of them on trial (though he was allowed to flee the country).
The settlers own passionately Zionist historians say the same, the settlers were beating and robbing and killing their way across Palestine from the time they arrived:
However, none of the above is really recognisable as Zionism terrorism - which really started in 1907:Morris, Righteous Victims, p.47-48 wrote:Ahad Ha'Am in 1891 warned that the new settlers must behave "cautiously ... [and] act with love and respect" toward Arabs. But the settlers, he wrote, finding themselves in a land "with limitless freedom," as the Turkish authorities were extremely lax, began to exhibit "a tendency to despotism as happens always when a slave turns into a master."[45. Ro'i, Ya'akov, in Hebrew, "The Relations between Rehovot and Its Arab Neighbours (1890-1914)" In HaTziyonut, edited by David Karpi, 1980, p. 165] Two years later he wrote: "The attitude of the colonists to their tenants and their families is exactly the same as towards their animals:" The settlers appear to have commonly referred to their laborers as "mules," an analogy drawn from the Talmudic comparison between asses and Canaanite slaves.[46 Shapira, Anita. (Heb.) "Land and Power". Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1992. p.90-91]
Attitudes translated into deeds.
Ahad Ha'Am wrote, with perhaps a measure of exaggeration (Morris claims!), that the Zionist colonists "behave towards the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass without justification, beat them shamefully without sufficient cause and then boast about it."[47. Ro'i, Ya'akov, in Hebrew, "The Relations between Rehovot and Its Arab Neighbours (1890-1914)" In HaTziyonut, edited by David Karpi, 1980, p.165). See also Be'eri, quoting Hissin, p.74] Rehovot - exceptionally among the colonies - repeatedly issued rulings forbidding the beating of Arabs. In 1898 a settler was fined 39 grush (there were 100 grush to the Turkish pound [TL], which was worth just under £1), about seven days' pay for a laborer, for beating an Arab who, on the instruction of another settler, drove a cart through his vineyard. The following year a settler was fined TL 4 for "cruelly beating" an Arab. Three-quarters of the fine went to the victim; the settler was also ordered to pay hospital costs [48. Ro'i, 1980, 174-76, 199.] Arabs came so to respect the Rehovot judicial committee that they brought before it complaints against Jewish settlers and at least one dispute among themselves.[48. Ro'i, 1980, p.165].
Hirst, The gun and the Olive Branch. p.149/150, Chapter:MILITARIZATION BEGINS wrote: ... The 'conquest of labour', as the expression itself implies, could not be accomplished without violence.... By 1903, the more perceptive older immigrants had come to the conclusion that 'these Russian Jewish labourers together with the principle of exclusive Jewish Hebrew labour', constituted 'a major factor in arousing the hostility of the Palestinian Arabs'." The process of militarization foreseen by Herzl gradually got under way. In 1907 an organization calling itself Hashomer ('The Guardian') came into being with the task of replacing Arab with Jewish guards on the ground that Jewish property must be protected by Jews.
... The Hashomer constituted the first nucleus of a military force. In 1909 a secret defence organization was created. Yitzhak Ben Zvi, a future President of Israel, was among the founders. His description of the organization's first meeting, which took place in his rooms, is full of forebodings about the future.... "In blood and fire Judea fell, in blood and fire it shall rise again".'33
... The militarization had been preceded by a discussion between two young pioneers in the colony of Sejera. One of them, David, wished to establish a Jewish 'self-defence' organization. The other, Shlomo, opposed this. They had returned, he argued, to the Promised Land in order to lead a peaceful life. If they stirred up the Arabs, there would be no shalom, no peace, ever. David persisted. This was a world in which force and force alone won respect. Shlomo left for Paris. David - David Bengurion - remained.35
Arab attitudes were hardening too. It was a slow and halting process. For the Palestinian leaders had a less developed ideological propensity towards the use of force than their Zionist counterparts. It was alien to their whole outlook as the representatives of a subject people. When, in 1890, the Palestinian elite, in the shape of a group of Jerusalem 'notables', took their first formal initiative in the struggle that was beginning, they did the only lawful thing they could. They protested to their imperial masters, the Sublime Porte in Constantinople. They were thereby exhibiting a deferential instinct which remained with them in gradually diminishing strength, through the remaining years of Ottoman rule, thirty years of the British Mandate, and twenty-five years of their post-1948 Diaspora. They protested at the appointment of a Turkish governor who manifestly favoured the Zionists. The next year, they submitted another petition, which contained two demands: the ending of Jewish immigration and of land purchases. Then, in 1898, Yusuf Zia al-Khalidi made his direct approach to the Zionists. Appeals of this kind had little effect. The Zionists only pretended to listen. The Turks listened - but only fitfully. The Porte would periodically impose restrictions on immigration, only to lift them again under European pressure, or to allow venal officials on the spot to turn a blind eye to the continued defiance of them.